Close
Faqja 1 prej 7 123 ... FunditFundit
Duke shfaqur rezultatin 1 deri 20 prej 126
  1. #1
    Shpirt Shqiptari Maska e Albo
    Anėtarėsuar
    16-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Philadelphia
    Postime
    20,020
    Faleminderit
    25
    280 falenderime nė 207 postime

    Dallimet e Orthodhoksisė me Katolicizmin

    ORTHODOXY & CATHOLICISM

    By Father Theodore Pulcini, PhD


    Every so often we hear someone say, “Orthodox Christianity — let’s see, isn’t that sort of like the Eastern branch of the Roman Catholic Church?” No, not really. Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are distinct bodies with significant differences.

    In discussing these differences, my approach will be primarily auto-biographical. Almost two decades ago I began a long and arduous process of discernment that led to my conversion from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

    At the outset, I must state that I am grateful for my Catholic upbringing, which imparted to me a sober appreciation of Christian doctrine and a healthy experience of spiritual discipline. My embracing of Orthodoxy occurred not as a result of hostility toward my religious past, but in fulfillment of it. It was my upbringing in Roman Catholicism that prepared me to recognize the light of pristine Christianity that still shines in Orthodoxy. That recognition began during my college years as a result of theological and historical inquiries.


    A CLASH OF VIEWPOINTS

    After years of Catholic religious education, I had come to accept the Rome-centered view of Church history: that Christ had chosen Peter to be the head of the Church, the first pope, and that the church founded by Peter, the church of Rome, from the very beginning had a preeminence and superiority over all of Christendom. Moreover, the bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter inherited his power as the head of the Church and the vicar of Christ on earth, down to the present day.

    Rebelliousness, I was taught, led the Protestants to reject this divinely established structure of Church authority, giving rise to their heretical teachings and endless divisions. In my religious training, the Catholic view of Church history had been opposed to the Protestant view, which was presented as seriously deficient.

    In college, however, I began to see that history is always written from a particular perspective. There is no such thing as objective history; all historians tell their story from a particular viewpoint. Thus, in an attempt to arrive at an honest appreciation of another Christian historical perspective, I began to explore the Protestant account of early Christianity.

    To be sure, I detected flaws in it. It seemed to me that, in reaction to the abuses in medieval Catholicism, Protestantism had gone too far; it had “thrown out the baby with the bath water,” so to speak. For example, the Protestant view did not adequately account for the sacramental and hierarchical aspects of the early Church so clearly described in ancient Christian texts; it simply dismissed them as evidence of early “corruptions” and “aberrations.” Nevertheless, the Protestant critique of the Catholic viewpoint forced me to confront some serious questions I would otherwise have ignored.


    VEXING QUESTIONS

    For example, even if Peter did enjoy a sort of preeminence among the Apostles, did that mean Christ intended for him to have the kind of primacy among bishops and the sort of universal power over the entire Church that the later popes claimed? When Christ said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church” (Matthew 16:18), was the “rock” on which the Church was to be built the person of Peter and his successors, or was it the confession that Peter had just made: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16)? It seemed if Christ did confer on Peter a sort of preeminence, it was by virtue of this confession of faith; it alone could serve as the foundation for the Church.

    And if Christ gave to Peter the power to loose and to bind (“And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” Matthew 16:19), he gave the same power to all the disciples as well (“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” Matthew 18:18).

    Furthermore, whatever Peter’s privileged position was in the early Christian community, it certainly had little in common with the prerogatives claimed by later bishops of Rome. To say that the later papal office was simply a “fleshing out, a logical development, of the role of the Apostle Peter in the primitive Church seemed more and more untenable to me.

    And what about the Catholic teachings that precipitated the Reformation — the doctrines concerning indulgences and purgatory? What of the Roman dogmatic pronouncements on the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, and the Assumption of Mary, all rejected by Protestants?

    On the one hand, the Protestant critique raised vexing questions that pointed to flaws in the Catholic viewpoint. On the other hand, the Protestant viewpoint did not seem to present a satisfactory alternative. I was stymied.

    It was only gradually that I came to realize that my dilemma was the result of seeing these questions solely in terms of the dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism. In the course of my reading, however, I saw that another perspective — the most ancient of all — was relevant to my search: the perspective of the Orthodox Church.


    A FRESH PERSPECTIVE

    Who were the Orthodox, anyway? I had had some exposure to them. Their churches dot the landscape of western Pennsylvania, where I grew up. I had many Orthodox classmates throughout my years in elementary and secondary school. But I had simply written off Orthodoxy as a sort of “underdeveloped” Catholicism, embraced by certain ethnic groups, such as Russians, Greeks, and Serbs, whose fierce tribal loyalties motivated them to set up their own national churches and to reject what I considered to be the more mature, universal Christianity of Catholicism.

    But as I continued to read, I discovered that, no matter how Orthodox Christianity had been disfigured in the ethnic enclaves of western Pennsylvania, it nonetheless saw itself as a universal Faith — indeed the ancient Catholic Faith — that refused to fall prey to what it saw as serious aberrations that had developed in Roman Catholicism.

    These aberrations fell into five categories: (1) the understanding of the papacy; (2) the filioque; (3) the teaching regarding purgatory and indulgences; (4) the “new dogmas” — the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, and the Assumption; and (5) various practices enforced in the Roman Church, such as Communion under one species (the laity receiving only bread and not wine), the separation of baptism and confirmation (chrismation), and compulsory clerical celibacy.

    I saw that many of the very same criticisms adduced by Protestantism against Roman Catholicism were voiced by Orthodoxy as well. But I felt obliged to take the Orthodox critique much more seriously. After all, Protestantism emerged in force only in the sixteenth century; the Orthodox Church, on the other hand, traced its origins all the way back to the Apostles themselves. Even the Roman Church conceded as much, recognizing the validity of the Orthodox Church’s sacraments and the venerable antiquity of its institutions. It considered the Orthodox Church to be “schismatic” (separated), but not “heretical” (teaching false doctrine).

    The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, had the boldness to label the Roman Church both schismatic and heretical! On what grounds could it make such claims? I began to investigate the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism in an attempt to discern which stance was more defensible.


    THE PAPACY

    To my surprise, the Orthodox did not in principle deny the primacy of the pope of Rome. But they did differ from the Roman Church in their understanding of it.

    According to the Orthodox, the pope of Rome enjoyed a status of “first among equals.” That is, all bishops are fundamentally equal; there is no such thing as an episcopus episcoporum, a “bishop of the bishops.” Certain bishops in Orthodoxy — patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops — enjoy special status among their brother bishops but not above them. They lead other bishops by forming consensus, not by issuing peremptory decrees. In other words, no bishop in Orthodoxy has the right to push aside a brother bishop and impose his will in that bishop’s territory. The pope of Rome, on the other hand, claims such a prerogative.

    Which position was correct? It seemed to me that in the ancient Church it was the Orthodox position that prevailed. Church historians recognize that, in organizing itself, the ancient Church followed what is called the “principle of accommodation.” That is, the cities of greatest importance in the Roman Empire came to be recognized as the primary bishoprics in the early Church.

    Gradually, five cities of great prominence in the empire emerged as the five preeminent “patriarchal” sees in the Church: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Rome held a primacy of influence among them — not because the church there had been founded by Peter (after all, Peter had been the bishop of the church in Antioch before he ever saw Rome!) but because it was the church of the capital city. This is why Constantinople held the second position of honor — because Constantine in the fourth century made it the new imperial capital.

    Of the five principal centers of the early Church, four of them Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — were in the East. They could maintain a system of checks and balances among themselves. If any claimed too great an influence for itself, it could be readily challenged by the other nearby centers.

    Not so with Rome. Isolated from the other centers, it was the only patriarchal see in the West and gradually came to develop an exaggerated sense of its authority. There was no other patriarchal see nearby to counter its claims. Rome thus ascribed ever greater prerogatives to itself.

    Gradually, as a result of political developments, it did become possible for the pope of Rome to exercise wider and wider sway throughout the entire Church. To shore up this newfound power, the doctrine of universal papal jurisdiction was articulated in clear opposition to the practice of the ancient Church.

    It thus seemed that the Roman doctrine of papal primacy was an innovation that had no precedent in early Christianity; it was formulated as a “theological justification” for the political power which historical circumstances had conferred upon the Roman church. It became clear to me that the Orthodox position was far more consistent with the understanding of authority in the early Church.

    What is more, I was struck by the Orthodox Church’s willingness even today to recognize Rome as the first among equals if only Rome would reject its pretensions. In other words, if Rome again affirmed the early Church’s understanding of authority, the Orthodox Church would again recognize Rome’s primacy. I therefore came to see the division between the Eastern and Western churches as the result not of Orthodoxy’s stubborn refusal to recognize papal authority, but of Roman Catholicism’s unjustifiable papal claims.


    THE FILIOQUE

    Then there was the dispute between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics regarding the filioque. This Latin word, meaning “and the Son,” was added unilaterally by the Roman Church to the original text of the creed that had been composed at the councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). This creed originally read, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father.” This is exactly what Jesus taught when He said, “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John 15:26).

    Gradually the Western church added the filioque, so that the text came to read, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This gave rise to the Roman doctrine of the “double procession,” according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but from both the Father and the Son.

    The thought of such Western Fathers as Tertullian (d. c. 220) and Augustine (d. 430) paved the way for this alteration. It seems the actual insertion of the filioque was made at the Council of Toledo, held in Spain in 589. The addition did not remain a purely Spanish phenomenon, however. It gradually spread to France and Germany.

    The propagation of the filioque was part of Charlemagne’s agenda. He flaunted the Western addition to the creed before flabbergasted Eastern Christians and incessantly attempted to force Pope Hadrian I to insert it officially into the creed. The pope, however, did not yield to the emperor’s demands; he conceded to Charlemagne that the doctrine of the filioque was admissible but insisted that the doctrine of the single procession (that the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone) was consonant with both the Fathers of antiquity and the Tradition of the Church of Rome. Nevertheless, Charlemagne persisted. Gradually, use of the filioque spread throughout the Western church.

    The Eastern reaction against the filioque was two-pronged. On the one hand, the Greeks objected to any addition to the creed. The councils that had produced the words of the creed had clearly forbidden any additions to, or subtractions from, it. On the other hand, the Eastern Church was convinced that, from a theological point of view, the doctrine of the filioque was incorrect.

    In the ninth century, the patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, wrote an encyclical condemning a number of Western “innovations” (doctrines and practices not held by the early Church), among which was Rome’s addition of the filioque to the creed. He actually accused the Roman pope, Nicholas, of heresy in this matter and excommunicated him!

    The addition to the creed was thus established as a perennial point of contention between the churches of East and West, and remains so until this day.

    I must admit that I did not understand all of the fine points of Trinitarian doctrine brought up in the arguments between the East and West. But I did see one thing clearly: the Orthodox Church to this day retains the original text of the Nicene Creed, while the Roman Church uses an altered text.

    As I became more and more convinced of the validity of the Orthodox Church’s stance on the matter of the filioque, I was encouraged to consider other Orthodox criticisms of Rome. I turned next to the issue of purgatory and indulgences.


    PURGATORY AND INDULGENCES

    I had been sensitized to the issue of purgatory and indulgences through my reading of historical texts relating to the rupture between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. It was, after all, the issue of selling indulgences that sparked the fires of Reformation in the sixteenth century. I knew that Orthodox, like Roman Catholics, prayed for the departed. Did that mean they also accepted purgatorian doctrine and the related teachings concerning indulgences?

    The answer to this question was a resounding “no.” Roman Catholicism justifies its practice of praying for the dead as follows: Even after a sinful action is forgiven, there still remains a “temporal punishment” due to that sin which must be expiated. If someone should die after having been forgiven (in a state of grace) but before having the opportunity to expiate the temporal punishment, that person is assured of heaven. But before being able to enter it, he or she must spend some time in purgation — hence the doctrine of purgatory.

    This temporal punishment due to sin can be expiated not only through penitential effort but also through a “gift” of the church. By this scheme the church draws from the infinite merits earned by Christ and the saints and applies them to a particular person so that all or part of that person’s temporal punishment due to sin is expiated. This “gift” is called an indulgence. It can be used to expiate one’s own temporal punishment due to sin, or it can, through intercessory prayer, be applied to a “suffering soul” in purgatory, so that the soul may then enter the fullness of heaven’s joys.

    Orthodoxy, I discovered, finds such reasoning excessively mechanistic and quite foreign to the spirit of the gospel. Yes, Orthodoxy believes in a state of existence between the time of death and the dawning of the Last Day, but it is a place of rest quite different from the purgatory of Roman Catholic doctrine. The idea of purgatory is based on an obviously legalistic notion that the soul must “pay what it owes” before being admitted to the full joys of heaven.

    This teaching makes the Orthodox Christian uneasy on two counts: First, Orthodoxy avoids understanding salvation in legalistic terms. Because Christ made a complete sacrifice for our sins, once we are forgiven, we are forgiven. There is no need to provide expiation for some “residual” debt which remains after one is forgiven. Thus, Orthodoxy rejects the whole idea of temporal punishment due to sin.

    Second, Orthodoxy teaches there is no experiencing the “full joy” of heaven (which a soul supposedly would experience, according to the Roman Catholic understanding, once it has undergone sufficient purgation) until the Last Day. The “intermediate state,” in the Orthodox view, is therefore not a state between heaven and hell in which some souls must spend time before entering heaven. It is, rather, a state of repose where all souls rest in anticipation of the Last Day (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). In that repose they have a foretaste of their eternal reward or punishment, which will be fixed on the Last Day.

    In the meantime, the Orthodox Church teaches, these souls benefit from the prayers of the faithful. These prayers, as acts of love, comfort the souls of the departed and better prepare them to stand confident of God’s grace and mercy at the dread judgment seat of Christ on the Last Day.

    The Orthodox Church gives no mechanistic explanation of how these prayers benefit the departed. It simply affirms the ancient Christian teaching that such prayers are efficacious in preparing the souls of the departed for the final judgment. For example, Saint Paul interceded for the departed Onesiphorus when he wrote, “The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day” (2 Timothy 1:18). In this attitude, the Orthodox Church much more closely reflects the viewpoint of the early Church and abstains from the more speculative and legalistic justifications for such prayers which characterize the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory and indulgences.

    These late doctrines seemed to be innovations without a firm basis in the teaching of the Scriptures and the early Church. But as my research continued, I discovered that these innovations were not the only ones that had found their way into Roman Catholic teaching.


    THE “NEW DOGMAS”

    I had always taken great pride in three distinctively Catholic teachings: the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, and the Assumption. As dogmas, they must be accepted by all Catholics who desire to be in good standing with their church. So, of course, I accepted them fully — until I developed some historical perspective on how they had become part of Catholic teaching.

    I was shocked to find out that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (which asserts that “from the first moment of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by the singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of mankind, kept free from all stain of original sin”) was defined only in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in his bull Ineffabilis Deus. The dogma was only a little over a century old! And right up to the very time of the definition, various parties contested its orthodoxy.

    What I found most disturbing in my reading was that the Orthodox objected to the doctrine not so much because of its proclamation of Mary as immaculate (indeed, the Orthodox liturgy repeatedly refers to Mary as “all-holy,” “immaculate,” and “most blessed”) but because of the erroneous understanding of original sin underlying it.

    The Orthodox, I discovered, objected to the Roman Catholic understanding of original sin as the stain of inherited guilt passed down from Adam, as a result of his sin, to the rest of the human race. The Orthodox saw this notion of original sin as skewed, drawing almost exclusively on the thought of Saint Augustine. He had virtually ignored the teachings of the Eastern Fathers, who tended to see original sin not as inherited guilt but rather as “the ancestral curse” by which human beings were alienated from the divine life and thus became subject to corruption and death.

    It is easy to see why the Orthodox rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Because they understood original sin in terms of the ancestral curse of human mortality, they saw Pius IX’s dogma as amounting to no less than an assertion of Mary’s immortality! That is, by saying that Mary was free from original sin, the Roman Church in effect was saying that Mary was not mortal! She was therefore not like the rest of the human race. This was something no Orthodox Christian could accept. In fact, Orthodoxy calls Mary “the first of the redeemed” the first human to receive the great blessing of salvation now available to all mankind.

    I sadly concluded that the erroneous Roman understanding of original sin had led to another erroneous teaching, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The dogma was clearly an unwarranted innovation.

    It was much the same with the dogma of papal infallibility. This doctrine asserts that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, “from the throne,” or officially, on matters of faith and morals, he teaches infallibly. Thus the whole Church is bound by his teaching.

    This doctrine, defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870 (sixteen years after the dogma of the Immaculate Conception), is also an innovation. It does not articulate ancient Christian understanding of the role of the See of Rome in the universal Church, and as a result, the Orthodox Church rejected it. I was surprised to find out that a fac*tion within the Roman Church itself rejected this doctrine as well, thus giving rise to the so-called Old Catholic Churches.

    Orthodox react less negatively to the Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption than to the two others just discussed. This dogma, which affirms that Mary, “having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory,” was defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950. The event is commemorated on August 15 of the Catholic ecclesiastical calendar — the same date on which the Orthodox celebrate Mary’s falling asleep, or Dormition (death), rather than her bodily assumption.

    To be sure, a strong and early tradition existed in both East and West that after Mary’s death the Lord assumed her into heaven. In Psalm 45, a messianic psalm, the Church Fathers interpreted the phrase, “At Your right hand stands the queen” (v. 9) as a reference to Mary’s presence with the Lord now. But her assumption is not a required belief for Orthodox, though it is a widely respected theological opinion. Why, the Orthodox wonder, should such a belief, hardly central to the Christian proclamation of salvation, be dogmatized and put on the same level as other truly central dogmas like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the two natures of Christ?

    In short, in examining the “new” Roman Catholic doctrines more closely, I found the Orthodox criticism of them to be quite justified.


    DIFFERENCES IN PRACTICE

    Similarly, I found that in those cases in which Roman Catholic practices diverge from Orthodox practices, the latter are usually more faithful to ancient Christian practice than the former. That is, the Roman Catholic distinctive usually represents an innovation.

    Let me cite a few examples.

    The Orthodox have consistently given Communion under both species; that is, both the consecrated bread and wine are given to all communicants. Roman Catholics normally give lay communicants the consecrated bread alone. The Orthodox practice is by far the more ancient. Recognizing this, the Second Vatican Council recommended restoration of Communion under both species, even though this is still not done in a typical parish on a typical Sunday.

    The Orthodox administer the sacraments of initiation — baptism, chrismation (confirmation), and Eucharist jointly, just as the early Church did. The Roman Catholic Church has separated them and even disrupted their normal order, administering baptism, then Eucharist, and then confirmation (chrismation). In some places, Catholics recognize the greater antiquity of the Orthodox practice and are attempting to restore it within their own church.

    Following the practice of the ancient Church, the Orthodox do not insist that celibacy be imposed as a requirement for ordination to the priesthood. The vast majority of Orthodox parish priests are married men. The Roman Catholic policy of compulsory clerical celibacy is of medieval origin. Again, many Catholics today are challenging the wisdom of their present discipline and advocating a return to the more ancient discipline as observed in Orthodoxy.

    A DIFFERENT “FEEL”

    Even apart from all the particular differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, I detected a different orientation in the two faiths. The Orthodox experience of Christianity, while having many elements in common with Catholicism, has a distinctive “feel,” a way of thinking and of doing things.

    Perhaps most significantly, Orthodoxy views theology less as an exercise in reason than as an attempt to express an ineffable mystery. Theology in the Catholic West seems to be largely a matter of precise definition and syllogistic deduction, highly philosophical and rationalistic in nature. In the Orthodox East, theology seems to be largely a matter of doxology, of bowing in reverent wonder before the ineffable; it is less concerned with philosophical precision than with experiencing the incomprehensible. This attitude finds expression in the unparalleled beauty and majesty of Orthodox worship.

    Moreover, although I respected and stood in awe before the magnificent organization of the Roman Church, I was growing tired of the legalism that seemed to pervade the Catholic experience. To be sure, I saw that things were not so clear-cut, so black and white, in the Orthodox system. Instead there was a tantalizing sort of freedom to be found there, a freedom which encouraged one to be responsible, not just obedient.

    The legalistic emphasis of the Catholic Church, I discovered, had a profound effect not only on its administrative style but also on its theological orientation. Salvation, for example, was explained in legal terms; in dying, Christ paid the sentence that had been justly imposed on the human race as a result of sin — death and condemnation. Salvation was thus explained largely in terms of expiation of debt and removal of a just sentence — legal categories.

    To be honest, I had never found this view very satisfying. Why would a loving God require such a price? Was the Father really so angry and vengeful that he would require the death of his own Son in order to be appeased? I was looking for a better understanding of salvation, and in Orthodoxy I found it.


    TO BE SAVED IS TO BE TRANSFORMED


    In the Orthodox view, to be saved is not to be freed from a sentence imposed by God. Rather, it is to be transformed by Him, to be restored to what He meant us to be! I learned the principle on which the whole Orthodox spiritual tradition is based: God became a human being so that human beings could become divine. This process of divinization is known as theosis. To be sure, we human beings can never become God by nature, but the human being was never meant to exist in separation from God. Salvation is meant to draw us back into communion with God.

    Only in being “energized” by grace (which for the Orthodox is not a created commodity but the very Presence of the Uncreated One conveyed to His creature) can human nature be what it is truly meant to be. When it speaks of divinization, Orthodox theology is really speaking of true humanization, the restoration of human beings to the state in which they were created. In that sense we are all meant to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

    Theosis made me appreciate prayer and the sacraments anew, as transforming encounters with God. I began to see an experiential unity between theology and spirituality. The truth of the gospel became evident to me with a fresh clarity. Whatever Orthodoxy was in its various aspects, I experienced it as profoundly true.


    TO LIVE THE APOSTOLIC FAITH


    Despite all its struggles — and it has many — the Orthodox Church has maintained, without distorting addition or damaging detraction, the Faith of the Apostles, the Faith of the ancient Church. This is enough for me, and has been for me the source of a quiet but perennial joy.

    The Orthodox Church is not politically powerful, or wealthy, or particularly erudite. But it possesses the indwelling of that Spirit who bears witness to Christ, the Spirit who fosters the experience of the risen Lord that has enabled all true Christians to believe. To be Orthodox is to have access to the Christian life and experience in its pristine — form. For Orthodox Christians, without ever impugning the goodness and sincerity of other Christians, affirm that it is in the Orthodox Church that the fullness of Christian truth is to be found.



    This article is excerpted from Orthodoxy and Catholicism: What are the Differences? by Father Theodore Pulcini: Conciliar Press, 1995.

    Fr. Ted is pastor of St. Mary Mission of Chambersburg, PA and on the faculty at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA.
    "Babai i shtetit ėshtė Ismail "Qemali", e zbuloi Edvin shkencėtari!"

  2. #2
    Shpirt Shqiptari Maska e Albo
    Anėtarėsuar
    16-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Philadelphia
    Postime
    20,020
    Faleminderit
    25
    280 falenderime nė 207 postime
    ORTHODHOKSIA DHE KATOLICIZMI

    Nga At Theodore Pulcini, PhD

    Herė pas here dėgjojme dikė qė tė thotė, "Krishtėrimi Orthodhoks - pa dale, a nuk ėshtė ky njė degė e Lindjes e Kishės Romano Katolike?" Jo, aspak. Orthodhoksia dhe Katolicizmi Roman dallojnė nga njėri-tjetri me dallime tė mėdha.

    Nė tė diskutuarit e kėtyre dallimeve, afrimiteti im do tė jetė kryesisht autobiografik. Pothuaj se 2 dekada mė parė unė fillova njė proēes tė gjatė dhe tė vėshtirė tė dallimit midis tė dyjave qė solli konvertimin tim nga Katolicizmi Roman nė Orthodhoksi.

    Qė nė fillim, dua t'u bėj tė qartė qė unė jam mirėnjohės qė u rrita si Katolik, pasi mė dhuroi mua njė vlerėsim tė duhur tė doktrinės sė Krishterė dhe njė pėrjetim tė shėndetshėm nė disiplinėn shpirtėrore. Pėrqafimi nga ana ime e Orthodhoksisė nuk erdhi si rezultat i urrejtjes sime ndaj tė shkuarės sime fetare, por si njė pėrmbushje e saj. Rritja ime nė Katolicizmin Roman mė pėrgatiti qė tė njoh dritėn e kulluar tė Krishtėrimit qė shkėlqen akoma nė Orthodhoksi. Kjo njohje filloi gjatė viteve tė mia nė kolegj si rezultat i kėrkimeve theologjike dhe historike tė mia.


    NJĖ PĖRPLASJE PIKĖPAMJESH

    Pas vitesh edukimi fetar si katolik, kisha arritur tė pranoja pikėpamjen e Romė-qėndėrzuar tė Historisė sė Kishės: qė Krishti kishte zgjedhur Pjetrin qė tė ish koka e Kishės, papa i parė, dhe qė kisha e themeluar nga Pjetri, kisha e Romės, qė nga fillimi kishte njė preminencė dhe superioritet mbi gjithė Krishtėrimin. Pėr mė tepėr, peshkopi i Romės qe pasoi Pjetrin trashėgoi fuqinė e tij si kreu i Kishės dhe vikar i Krishtit nė tokė, deri nė ditėt e sotme.

    Mua mė kishin mesuar se rebelimi i ēoi Protestantėt qė tė refuzonin kėtė strukturė tė autoritetit tė Kishės tė ngritur nė mėnyrė hyjnore, duke u hapur rrugėn mėsimeve tė tyre heretike dhe ndarjeve tė pafund. Nė trajnimin tim fetar, pikėpamja Katolike e historisė sė Kishės ishte nė kundėrshtim me pikėpamjen Protestante, qė prezantohej si seriozisht e mangėt.

    Nė kolegj ama, fillova tė kuptoj se historia shkruhet gjithmonė me njė kėndvėshtrim tė caktuar. Nuk ekziton njė gjė e tillė si histori objektive; tė gjithė historianėt e thonė historinė e tyre nga njė pikėpamje e caktuar. Prandaj, nė pėrpjekjet e mia pėr tė dalė me njė vlerėsim tjetėr tė ndershėm tė njė kėndvėshtrimi tjetėr tė Krishterė, fillova qė tė eksploroja qėndrimin e Protestantėve mbi Krishtėrimin e hershėm.

    Qė tė sigurohesha, zbulova gabime nė tė. M'u duke se, si njė reagim ndaj abuzimeve mesjetare tė Katolicizmit, Protestantėt kishin shkuar shumė larg; me fjalė tė tjera, "kishin flakur edhe foshnjėn me ujin e legenit". Pėr shembull, pikėpamja Protestante nuk zinte nė gojė siē duhet aspektet e hierarkisė dhe sakramentale tė Kishės sė hershme qė pėrshkruhen aq qartė nė doreshkrimet e hershme tė Krishtėrimit. I hidhte poshtė kėto si prova tė njė "korrupsioni" dhe "devijimi" tė hershėm. Megjithatė, kritika Protestante ndaj pikėpamjes Katolike mė detyroi mua qė tė perballem me disa pyetje serioze qė do ti kisha injoruar po tė mos isha njohur me tė.


    PYETJE SHQETĖSUESE

    Pėr shembull, edhe nėse Pjetri gėzonte njė lloj preminence nė rradhėt e Apostujev, a do tė thosh kjo se Krishti mendonte se ai duhet tė ishte primar nė rradhėt e peshkopėve dhe tė kishte pushtet universal mbi tė gjithė Kishėn, siē pretendonin papat qė erdhėn pas tij? Kur Krishti tha, "Ti je Pjetri, dhe mbi kėtė shkėmb unė do tė ngreh Kishėn Time" (Mateu 16:18), a ishte "shkėmbi" mbi tė cilin do tė ndėrtohej Kisha personi i Pjetrit dhe pasardhėsit e tij, apo ishte rrėfimi qė Pjetri sapo kishte bėrė: "Ti je Krishti, Biri i Perėndisė sė Gjallė" (Mateu 16:16)? Duket sikur edhe nėse Krishti la tė kuptohej qė Pjetri kishte njė lloj premeninence, kjo ishte falė virtutit tė rrėfimit tė besimit, dhe vetėm kjo mund tė shėrbente si themel i Kishės.

    Dhe nėse Krishti i dha Pjetrit fuqinė qė tė lidhi dhe tė zgjidhi ("Dhe do tė jap ēelėsat e mbretėrisė sė qiellit dhe ēfarėdo qė ti do tė lidhėsh mbi tokė do tė jetė e lidhur ehde nė qiell, dhe ēfarėdo qė ti do tė zgjidhėsh mbi tokė, do tė jetė e zgjidhur edhe nė qiell" Mateu 16:19), ai i dha tė njėjtėn fuqi tė gjithė apostujve gjithashtu ("Me tė vėrtetė, ju them, ēfarėdo qė tė lidhni mbi tokė do tė jetė e lidhur edhe nė qiell, dhe ēfarėdo qė tė zgjidhni mbi tokė do tė jetė e zgjidhur edhe nė qiell" Mateu 18:18).

    Po ashtu, ēfarėdo pozite tė privilegjuar qė Pjetri pati nė komunitetin e hershėm tė Krishterė, kjo pozitė nuk kish asgjė tė pėrbashkėt me privilegjet e veēanta qė u mbajtėn nga peshkopėt e mėpasėm tė Romės. Tė thuash se zyra e papatit ishte thjeshtė njė "mishėrim i mėtejshėm, njė zhvillim llogjik, i rolit tė Apostull Pjetrit nė kishėn primitive", mė duket gjithmonė e mė shumė si diēka qė nuk e mbron dot.

    Po nė lidhje me mėsimet Katolike qė precipituan nga Reformimi - doktrinat nė lidhje me favoret dhe purgatorin? Po nė lidhje me shpalljet dogmatike Romane mbi Shtatzaninė e Pamėkat, pagabueshmėrinė papale, dhe Lartėsimit sė Marisė, tė gjitha kėto tė hedhura poshtė nga Protestantėt?

    Nga njė anė, kritika Protestante ngriti pyetje shqetėsuese qė nxorrėn nė pah gabime nė kėndvėshtrimin Katolik. Nga ana tjetėr, kėndvėshtrimi Protestant nuk mu duk se prezantonte njė alternativė tė kėnaqėshme. Ngela nė vend numėro.

    Vetėm gradualisht fillova tė kuptoj se dilema ime ishte si rezultat i shikimit tė kėtyre pyetjeve nė raport me kontraditktat e Katolicizmit dhe Protestanizmit. Gjatė kohės qė po lexoja, pashė se njė perspektivė tjetėr - mė e vjetra nga tė gjitha - ishte me aktuale me kėrkimin tim: perspektiva e Kishės Orthodhokse.


    NJĖ PERSPEKTIVĖ E FRESKĖT

    Kush ishin kėta Orthodhoksėt njėherė? Kisha patur njė farė njohje me ta. Kishat e tyre janė tė dukshme nė peisazhin e Pensilvanise(shtet nė SHBA) perėndimore, vend ku unė u rrita. Kisha plot shokė orthodhoksė nė shkollėn fillore dhe 8-vjeēare. Por i kisha hequ vizė Orthodhoksisė si njė lloj Katolicizmi i "jo i zhvilluar sa duhet", qė ishte pėrqafuar nga disa grupe etnike tė veēanta, si rusėt, grekėt, serbėt, besnikėria e egėr fisnore e tė cilėve i motivoi qė tė ngrinin kishat e tyre kombėtare dhe tė refuzonin atė qė unė e konsideroja si mė tė pjekur, Krishtėrimin universal tė Katolicizmit.

    Teksa vazhdova tė lexoj, zbulova se pavarėsisht se si Krishtėrimi Orthodhoks ishte shpėrfytyruar nė enklavat etnike tė Pensilvanisė perėndimore, prapėsėprapi e shikonte veten si nj Fe universale - me tė vėrtetė Kisha e hershme Katolike - qė refuzonte tė bėhej pre e devijimeve serioze qė ishin zhvilluar nė Katolicizmin Roman.

    Kėto devijime ndaheshin nė pesė kategori: (1) tė kuptuarit e papatit; (2) filioque; (3) mėsimi nė lidhje me purgatorin dhe favoret; (4) "dogmat e reja" - Shtatzania e Pamėkat, pagabueshmėria papale, Lartėsimit sė Marisė; dhe (5) praktika tė ndryshme tė pėrforcuara nė Kishėn Romane, si pėr shembull Kungimi nėn njė lloj (besimtarėt e thjeshte marrin vetėm bukėn dhe jo verėn), ndarja e pagėzimit me konfirmimit (krizmimi), dhe celibati i detyrueshėm i klerit.

    Vura re se shumė nga kriticizmat qė kishte Protestanizmi kundėr Katolicizmit Roman i kish shpallur edhe vetė Orthodhoksia. Por u ndjeva i detyruar qė ta marr kritikėn Orthodhokse shumė mė seriozisht. Nė fund tė fundit, Protestantizmi u shfaq me forcė vetėm shekullin e XVI; Kisha Orthodhokse, nga ana tjetėr, e kish origjinėn qė nga vetė Apostujt. Edhe vetė Kisha Romane lėshonte pe, duke njohur vlefshmėrinė e sakramenteve tė Kishės Orthodhokse dhe vjetėrsinė e nderuar tė institucioneve tė saj. E konsideronte Kishėn Orthodhokse si "skizmatike" (tė ndarė), por jo "heretike" (qė mėson doktrinė tė gabuar).

    Kisha Orthodhokse, nga ana tjetėr, kishte guximin qė ta quante Kishėn Romane si skizmatike dhe heretike! Mbi ēfarė bazash mund tė bėnte kėto akuza? Fillova tė hetoj ndryshimet midis Orthodhoksisė dhe Katolicizmit Roman si njė pėrpjekje pėr tė dalluar se cili qėndrim ishte mė i mbrojtshmi.


    PAPATI

    Si njė surprizė pėr mua, Orthodhoksėt nuk e mohonin nė princip premacinė e papės sė Romės. Por dallonin me Kishėn Romane nė tė kuptuarit e kėsaj premacie.

    Sipas Orthodhoksėve, papa i Romės gėzonte njė status si "i parė nė mes tė barabartėsh". Qė do tė thotė, tė gjithė peshkopėt janė plotėsisht tė barabartė; nuk ekziston dika e tillė si "episcopus episcoporum", njė "peshkop i peshkopėve". Disa peshkopė nė Orthodhoksi - patriarkėt, mitropolitėt, kryepeshkopėt - gėzonin njė status tė veēantė nė rradhėt e vėllezėrve tė tyre peshkopė por nuk qėndronin mbi ta. Ata udhėheqin peshkopėt e tjerė duke formuar njė konsensus, dhe jo duke lėshuar dekrete tė pakundėrshtueshme. Me fjalė tė tjera, asnjė peshkop nė Orthodhoksi nuk ka tė drejtėn qė tė mėnjanojė njė vėlla peshkop dhe tė diktojė vullnetin e tij nė territorin e atij peshkopit tjėtėr. Papa i Romės, nga ana tjetėr, mbahet si i pakundėrshtueshėm.

    Cili qėndrim ishte i drejti? Mua mu duk se nė Kishėn e hershme ishte qėndrimi Orthodhoks ai qė triumfoi. Historianėt e Kishės e pranojnė se, kur ishte duke e organizuar veten, Kisha e hershme ndoqi atė qė quhet "principi i akomodimit". Qė do tė thotė, qytetet me rėndėsinė mė tė madhe nė Perandorinė Romake u njohėn si peshkopatat kryesore tė Kishės sė hershme.

    Gradualisht, pesė qytete tė njė rėndėsie tė madhe nė perandori u shfaqėn si pesė selitė "patriarkale" tė Kishės; Roma, Konstandinopoja, Aleksandria, Antioku, dhe Jeruzalemi. Roma gėzonte njė premaci influence midis tyre - jo sepse Kisha e Romės ishte themeluar nga Pjetri (nė fund tė fundit, Pjetri kish qėnė peshkopi i kishės sė Antiokut pėrpara se sytė e tij tė shihnin Romėn!) - por sepse ishte kisha e kryeqytetit tė perandorisė. Kjo ishte arsyeja pėrse Konstandinopoja mbante pozitėn e dytė nė rang nderi - sepse Konstandini e bėri atė nė shekullin e IV kryeqytetin e ri tė perandorisė.

    Prej pesė qendrave kryesore tė Kishės sė hershme, katėr prej tyre - Konstandinopoja, Aleksandria, Antioku dhe Jeruzalemi - ishin nė Lindje. Ato ruajtėn njė sistem tė kontrolleve dhe balancave midis tyre. Nėse njėra qendėr do tė mbahej si mė me influencė se tė tjerat, do tė sfidohej menjėherė nga qendrat e tjerave fqinje.

    Por nuk ndodhi kėshtu me Romėn. E izoluar nga qendrat e tjera, ishte e vetmia seli patriarkale nė Perėndim dhe gradualisht filloi qė tė zhvillonte njė ndjesi tė ekzagjeruar tė autoritetit tė vet. Nuk kish asnjė seli tjetėr patriarkale afėr qė ti sfidonte pretendimet e saj. Kėshtu Roma i caktoi autoritet gjithmonė e mė tė madh vetes.

    Gradualisht, si njė rezultat i zhvillimeve politike, u bė e mundur pėr papėn e Romės qė tė ushtronte ndikimin e tij gjithmonė e mė tė gjerė mbi gjithė Kishėn. Qė ta forconte kėtė pushtet tė sapogjetur, doktrina e juridiksionit universal papal u artikulua nė kundėrshti tė plotė me praktikat e Kishės sė hershme.

    U duk se doktrina Romane e premacisė papale ishte njė inovacion qė nuk kish asnjė preēedent nė Krishtėrimin e hershėm; ishte formuluar si njė "justifikim theologjik" pėr pushtetin politik tė cilin rrethanat historike kishin sjellė mbi kishėn Romane. Ishte e qartė pėr mua se qėndrimi Orthodhoks ishte shumė herė mė i konseguent me tė kuptuarit e autoritetit nė Kishėn e hershme.

    Pėr mė tepėr, mė bėri pėrshtypje vullneti i Kishės Orthodhokse edhe sot e kėsaj dite pėr tė njohur Romėn si tė parėn mes tė barabartėve nėse Roma do tė hidhte poshtė pretendimet e saja. Me fjalė tė tjera, nėse Roma do tė afirmonte pėrsėri tė kuptuarit e autoritetit tė Kishės sė hershtme, Kisha Orthodhokse do ta njihte pėrsėri premacinė e Romės. Kėshtu e kuptova se ndasitė midis kishave tė Lindjes dhe Perėndimit nuk kishin ardhur si rezultat i refuzimit kokėfortė tė Orthodhoksėve pėr tė njohur autoritetin papal, por si rrjedhojė e pretendimeve tė pajustifikueshme papale tė Katolicizmit Roman.


    FILIOQUE

    Pastaj ishte edhe kontradikta midis Orthodhoksėve dhe Katolikėve nė lidhje me filoque. Kjo fjalė latine, qė do tė thotė "dhe Birit," iu shtua nė mėnyrė tė njėanshme nga Kisha Katolike tekstit origjinal tė simbolit tė besimit qė u kompozua nė kėshillat ekumenike tė Nikeas (325) dhe Konstandinopojės (381). Ky simbol besimi qė nga fillim ishte, "Besoj nė Shpirtin e Shenjtė, Zot dhe Dhėnės i Jetės, qė rrjedh prej Atit." Kjo ishte ekzaktėsisht ajo qė na mėsoi edhe Jisui kur Ai tha: "Por kur Ndihmėsi tė vijė, tė cilin Unė do tua dėrgoj nga Ati, Shpirtin e sė vėrtetės qė rrjedh prej Atit, Ai do do tė mė dėshmojė Mua" (Joani 15:26).

    Gradualisht Kisha e Perėndimit shtoi filioque, dhe teksti tashmė lexohej, "Besoj nė Shpirtin e Shenjtė, Zot dhe Dhėnės i Jetės, qė rrjedh prej Atit dhe Birit." Prej kėtej lindi njė doktrinė Romane e "rrjedhjes sė dyfishtė", sipas sė cilės Shpirti i Shenjtė rrjedh jo vetėm nga Ati por nga Ati dhe Biri sė bashku.

    Mendimi i Etėrve Perėndimorė si Tertulliani (220 p. k.) dhe Augustini (430 p. k) shtruan udhėn pėr kėtė ndryshim. Duket se shtimi aktual i filoque u bė nė Kėshillin e Toledo, qė u mbajt nė Spanjė nė vitin 589. Shtimi nuk mbeti thjeshtė njė fenoment spanjoll ama. Gradualisht u pėrhap nė Francė dhe Gjermani.

    Pėrhapja e filoque ishte pjesė e agjendės sė Ēarlit tė Madh. Ai kapardisej me shtimin perėndimor qė iu bė simbolit tė besimit dhe pėrpara tė Krishterėve Lindorė tė shtangur me gojė hapur ai u pėrpoq pa pushim qė tė shtynte Papa Hadrian I qė ta shtonte tekstin zyrtarisht nė simbolin e besimit. Papa nuk u dorėzua pėrpara kėrkesave tė perandorit; ai i dha tė drejtė Ēarlit tė Madh se filoque ishte e pranueshme por insistoi se doktrina e rrjedhjes sė vetme (qė Shpirti rrjedh nga Ati vetėm) ishte nė harmoni si me Etėrit e hershėm edhe me Traditėn e Kishės sė Romės. Prapėsėprapi, Ēarli i Madh nuk hoqi dorė nga kėrkesat e tij. Gradualisht, pėrdorimi i filoque u pėrhap nė gjithė kishėn Perėndimore.

    Reagimi Lindor kundėr filoque ishte i dy-degėzuar. Nga njė anė, Grekėt kundėrshtuan ēdo lloj shtimi nė kredo. Kėshillat qė kishin krijuar ato fjalė tė simbolit tė besimit ndalonin fare hapur ēdo lloj shtimi ose heqje nė tekst. Nga ana tjetėr, Kisha Lindore ishte e bindur se, nga njė kėndvėshtrim theologjik, doktrina e filioque ishte e gabuar.

    Nė shekullin e IX, patriarku i Konstandinopojės, Foti, shkruajti njė qarkore ku dėnonte njė listė tė "inovacioneve" Perėndimore (doktrina dhe praktika qė nuk mbaheshin nga Kisha e hershme), nė mes tė sė cilės ishte edhe shtimi i filoque ne simbolin e besimit nga Roma. Ai nė fakt e akuzoi papėn e Romės, Nikollėn, pėr herezi nė kėtė ēėshtje dhe e ēkishėroi atė!

    Shtesa nė simbolin e besimit doli si nje pikė kontestimi e pėrhershme midis kishave tė Lindjes dhe Perėndimit, dhe vazhdon tė jetė e tillė edhe sot e kėsaj dite.

    Mė duhet tė pranoj se nuk i kuptova dot tė gjitha pikat e artikuluara bukur tė doktrinės Trinitariane qė u sollėn si argumente si nga Lindja dhe Perėndimi. Por njė gjė arrita ta shoh qartė: Kisha Orthodhokse edhe sot e kėsaj dite mban tekstin origjinal tė Simbolit tė Besimit Nikean, ndėrsa Kisha Romane pėrdor njė tekst tė ndryshuar.

    Teksa u binda gjithmonė e mė shumė nė lidhje me vlefshmėrinė e qėndrimit tė Kishės Orthodhokse mbi kėtė ēėshtje tė filoque, u inkurajova qė tė konsideroj kritika tė tjera Orthodhokse pėr Romėn. I ktheva sytė nė vazhdim nga purgatori dhe favoret.


    PURGATORI DHE FAVORET

    Jam sensibilizuar nė lidhje me problemin e purgatorit dhe favoret nėpėrmjet leximeve qė kam bėrė tė teksteve historike nė lidhje me sherrin midis Katolicizmit Roman dhe Protestantizmit. Nė fund tė fundit, ishte ēėshtja e shitjes sė favoreve qė ndezi shkėndijėn e zjarreve tė Reformimit nė shekullin e XVI. E dija qė Orthodhoksėt, ashtu si Katolikėt Romanė, luteshin pėr tė ndarėt nga jeta. Mos do tė thosh kjo se edhe ata e pranon purgatorin dhe mėsimet e favoreve qė kishin lidhje me tė?

    Pėrgjigjia e kėsaj pyetjeje ishte njė "jo" e bujshme. Katolikėt Romanė i justiifkonin praktikat e tyre tė tė luturit pėr tė vdekurit kėshtu: Edhe kur njė vepėr e mėkatshme falet, ngelet pėrsėri njė "ndėshkim i pėrkohshėm" falė atij mėkati qė duhet shlyer. Nėse dikush vdes pasi ėshtė falur (nė njė gjendje hiri) por para se tė kish mundėsi qė tė shlyente ndėshkimin e pėrkohshėm, ai person e ka siguruar qiellin. Por para se tė jete nė gjendje qė tė hyjė nė parajsė, duhet tė shpenzojė ca kohė nė purgator pėr tu pastruar nga mėkati - prej kėtej lind doktrina e purgatorit.

    Ky ndėshkim i pėrkohshėm falė mėkatit mund tė shlyet jo vetėm nėpėrmjet pėrpjekjeve tė vazhdueshme por edhe nėpėrmjet njė "dhurate" tė kishės. Nė kėtė mėnyrė kisha merr nga meritat e pafundme tė fituara nga Krishti dhe shenjtorėt dhe ua aplikon njė personi tė veēantė nė mėnyrė qė njė pjesė apo i gjithė ndėshkimi i pėrkohshėm i atij personi falė mėkatit tė mund tė shlyhet. Kjo "dhuratė" e ka emrin njė favor. Mund tė pėrdoret pėr tė shlyer ndėshkimin e pėrkohsėm tė njerėzve mėkatarė, ose mund tu aplikohet nėpėrmjet lutjeve ndėrmjetėsuese edhe tek njė "shpirt qė vuan" nė purgator, nė mėnyrė qė shpirti mund tė hyjė nė gėzimet e plota tė parajsės.

    Siē e zbulova, Orthodhoksia e shikon kėtė arsyetim si shumė mekanistik dhe si diēka tė huaj pėr shpirtin e ungjillit. Po, Orthodhoksia beson nė njė gjendje ekzistence ndėrmjet kohės sė vdekjes dhe lindjes sė Ditės sė Gjykimit, por ėshtė njė vend i ēlodhjes dhe shumė ndryshe nga purgatori i doktrinės sė Katolikėve Romanė. Ideja e purgatorit ėshtė bazuar nė nocionet e dukshme ligjore ku shpirti "duhet tė paguajė ato qė ka borxh" pėrpara se tė shijojė gjithė gėzimet e parajsės.

    Ky mėsim e bėn tė Krishterin Orthodhoks qė tė ndihet keq nė dy drejtime: Sė pari, Orthodhoksia i shmanget tė kuptuarit tė shpėtimit nė terma ligjore. Duke qėnė se Krishti bėri njė sakrificė tė plotė pėr faljen e mėkateve tona, kur jemi falur, mėkatet na janė falur. Nuk ėshtė nevoja qė tė shlyejmė borxhin e "mbetur" qė ngelet pasi jemi falur pėr mėkatin. Prandaj, Orthodhoksia e hedh poshtė tė gjithe idenė e ndėshkimit tė pėrkohshėm falė mėkatit.

    Sė dyti, Orthodhoksia na mėson se nuk do tė ketė pėrjetim tė "gjithė gėzimit" tė parajsės (tė cilin supozohet se shpirti do tė pėrjetojė pasi tė jetė pastruar nė purgator, sipas tė kuptuar Katolik Roman) derisa tė vijė Dita e Gjykimit. "Gjendja e ndėrmjetme", sipas botėkuptimit Orthodhoks, nuk ėshtė njė gjendje midis qiellit dhe ferrit nė tė cilin disa shpirtra duhet tė shpenzojnė kohė para se tė hyjnė nė parajsė. Pėrkundrazi, ėshtė njė gjendje e prehjes ku tė gjithė shpirtrat prehen nė pritje tė Ditės sė Gjykimit (lexo 1 Thesalonėve 4:13-17). Gjatė kėsaj prehje ata kanė mundėsi tė kenė njė parashijim tė shpėrblimit apo ndėshkimit tė tyre qė do tu jepet nė Ditėn e Gjykimit.

    Ndėrkohė, Kisha Orthodhokse na mėson se kėta shpirta pėrfitojnė nga lutjet e besimtarėve. Kėto lutje, si akte dashurie, i qetėsojnė shpirtrat e tė ndarėve nga jeta dhe i pėrgatisin ata mė mirė pėr tė qendruar me besim nė hirin dhe mėshirėn e Perėndisė kur tė jenė para fronit tė gjykimit tė Krishtit nė Ditėn e Gjykimit.

    Kisha Orthodhokse nuk jep asnje shpjegim mekanistik se si tė vdekurit pėrfitojnė nga kėtp lutje. Vetėm afirmon mėsimin e hershėm tė Krishterė se kėto lutje janė efikase nė pėrgatitjen e shpirtrateve tė tė vdekurve pėr ditėn e gjykimit. Pėr shembull, Shėn Pavli ndėrmjetėsoi pėr tė ndarin nga jeta Onesiforin kur shkruajti, "Perėndia pastė mėshirė pėr tė atė Ditė." (2 Timoteu 1:18). Me kėtė sjellje, Kisha Orthodhokse reflekton shumė mė mirė kėndvėshtimin e Kishės sė hershme dhe heq dorė nga justifikimet spekulative dhe ligjore pėr kėto lutje tė cilat karakterizojnė doktrinat Katoliko Romane nė lidhje me purgatorin dhe favoret.

    Kėto doktrina tė vona u dukėn si inovacione pa njė bazė tė fortė nė mėsimet e Shkrimit tė Shenjtė dhe tė Kishės sė hershme. Por teksa puna ime kėrkimore vazhdoi, zbulova se kėtp inovacione nuk ishin tė vetmet qė ishin futur nė mėsimet Katolike.


    "DOGMAT E REJA"

    Unė gjithmonė krenohesha me tre mėsime qė i kishin vetėm Katolikėt: dogmat e Shtatzanisė sė Pamėkat, pagabueshmėrisė papale, dhe Lartėsimit sė Marisė. Duke qėnė dogma, ato duhet tė pranohen nga tė gjithė Katolikėt qė duan tė jenė nė pozitė tė mirė me kishėn. Kėshtu qė edhe unė sigurisht, i pranova ato plotėsisht - deri atėherė kur zhvillova njė kėndvėshtrim historik se si kėto u bėnė pjesė e mėsimeve Katolike.

    U shokova kur zbulova se dogma e Shtatzanisė sė Pamėkat (qė do tė thotė se "qė nga momenti i shtatzanisė, Virgjėresha e Bekuar Mari ishte e pastruar nga njolla e mėkatit origjinal, falė hirit dhe privilegjit tė Perėndisė sė Plotfuqishėm, dhe falė meritave tė Jisu Krishtit, Shpėtimtarit tė njerėzimit.") ishte pėrkufizuar nė vitin 1854 nga Papa Pio IX nė mėsimet e tij tė "Ineffabilis Deus" (Zot i pagabueshėm). Kjo dogmė kish vetėm njė shekull! Dhe qė nga momenti i krijimit tė saj grupe tė ndryshme e kundėrshtuan orthodhoksinė e saj.

    Ajo qė mė shqetėsoi mė shumė se ēdo gjė nė leximet e mia ishte se Orthodhoksėt e kundėrshtuan kėtė doktrinė jo thjeshte se e shpallte Marinė si tė ēliruar nga mėkati origjinal (nė tė vėrtetė, liturgjia Orthodhokse nė mėnyrė tė vazhdueshme i referohet Marisė si e "Tėrėshenjtė", "Kulluar", dhe "Mė e bekuara"), por se ishte ndėrtuar mbi njė tė kuptim tė gabuar tė mėkatit origjinal.

    Siē e zbulova, Orthodhoksėt e kundėrshtuar tė kuptuarin Katoliko Roman tė mėkatit origjinaė si njė njollė tė trashėguar faji qė kalohet brez pas brezi tek gjithe njerėzimi qė nga koha e Adamit, si rezultat i mėkatit tė tij. Orthodhoksėt e panė kėtė nocion tė mėkatit origjinal si tė shtrembėruar te bazuar gati tėrėsisht mbi mėsimet e Shėn Agustinit. Ai i kishte injoruar mėsimet e Etėrve Lindorė qė e shikonin mėkatin origjinal jo si njė faj tė trashėguar por si njė "mallkim tė tė parėve" prej tė cilit njerėzit ishin larguar nga jeta hyjnore dhe detyrimisht i nėnshtroheshin prishjes dhe vdekjes.

    Ėshtė e lehtė qė tė kuptosh se pse Orthodhoksėt e hodhėn poshte doktrinėn e Shtatzanisė sė Pamėkat. Sepse ata e kuptonin mėkatin origjinal vetėm nė lidhje me mallkimin e vdekjes sė tė parėve, dhe dogma e papa Pios IX u pa si njė mbrojtje e idesė sė pavdekshmėrisė sė Marisė! Nė kėtė mėnyrė ajo nuk ishte si gjithė pjesa tjetėr e njerėzimit. Kjo ishte diēka qė asnjė Orthodhoks nuk mund tė pranonte. Nė fakt, Orthodhoksia e quan Marinė "tė shpenguarėn e parė" njeriu i parė qė mori bekimin e madh tė shpėtimit qė ėshtė i hapur tashmė pėr gjithė njerėzimin.

    Me trishtim arrita nė konluzionin se tė kuptuarit e gabuar Roman tė mėkatit origjinal na kishte nxjerrė njė mėsim tjetėr tė gabuar, dogmėn e Shtatzanisė sė Pamėkat. Ėshtė e qartė qė kjo dogmė ėshtė njė inovacion i pabazė.

    Ishte pothuaj se e njėjta gjė edhe me dogmėn e pagabueshmėrisė sė papės. Kjo doktroniė pohon se kur papa flet "ex cathedra", "nga froni", ose zyrtarisht, mbi ēėshtje tė besimit dhe moralit, ai na mėson nė mėnyrė tė pagabueshme. Prandaj e gjithė Kisha ėshtė e lidhur me mėsimet e tij.

    Kjo doktrinė, qė u pėrkufizua nė Kėshillin e Parė tė Vatikanit nė vitin 1870 (16 vjet pas dogmės sė Shtatzanisė sė Pamėkat), ėshtė po ashtu njė inovacion. Nuk e artikulon aspak tė kuptuarit e hershėm tė Krishterė tė rolit tė Selisė sė Romės nė Kishėn universale, dhe si rezultat, Kisha Orthodhokse e refuzoi. Unė u ēudita kur mėsova se fraksione brenda vetė Kishės Katolike nuk e pranuan doktrinėn, duke krijuar kėshtu tė ashtuquajturėn Kishat e Vjetra Katolike.

    Orthodhoksėt reagojnė mė pak negativisht ndaj dogmės Katolike tė Lartėsimit se sa ndaj dy tė tjerave qė sapo zura nė gojė mė lart. Kjo dogmė qė pohon se Maria, "pasi e pėrmbushi jetėn e saj mbi tokė, u ngjit me lavdi qiellore nė qiell me trupin dhe shpirtin e saj" u pėrkufizua nga papa Pio XII nė vitin 1950. Ngjarja pėrkujtohet nė 15 gusht tė kalendarit kishtar katolik - nė tė njėjtėn ditė qė Orthodhoksėt kremtojnė ditėn qė Maria fjeti, ose siē quhet Fjetja (vdekjen), se sa lartėsimin e saj trupor.

    Qė tė sigurohemi nė kėtė pikė, njė traditė e fortė e hershme ekziston si nė Lindje edhe nė Perėndim qė na mėson se pas vdekjes sė Marisė, Perėndia e mori atė nė parajsė. Nė Psallmin 45, njė psallm mesianik, Etėrit e Kishės e interpretuan frazėn, "Nė krahun e djathtė qėndron mbretėresha" (v. 9) si njė referencė ndaj pranisė sė Marisė me Perėndinė tani. Por lartėsimi i saj nė qiell nuk ėshtė njė besim i domosdoshėm pėr Orthodhoksin, edhe pse ėshtė njė mendim theologjik mjaft i respektuar. Pse, pyesin Orthodhoksėt, njė besim i tillė qė nuk ėshte aspak kryesore pėr shpalljen e shpėtimit duhet tė dogmatizohet dhe vendoset nė tė njėjtin nivel me dogmat e tjera kryesore si Trinia, Lindja e Virgjėr, dhe dy natyrat e Krishtit?

    Me pak fjalė, gjatė ekzaminimit nga afėr tė dogmave "tė reja" Katolike Romane, kritika Orthodhokse ndaj tyre mu duk shumė me vend.


    DALLIMET NĖ PRAKTIKĖ

    Nė mėnyrė tė ngjashme, zbulova se nė ato raste nė tė cilat praktikat Romano Katolike divergjojnė nga praktikat Orthodhokse, praktikat e Orthodhoksėve janė mė besnike ndaj praktikave tė hershme tė Krishtera se sa ato tė Katolikėve. Qė do tė thotė, qė dallimi i praktikave Romano Katolike zakonisht pėrbėn njė novacion.

    Mė lejoni tu jap disa shembuj.

    Orthodhoksėet u kanė dhėnė nė mėnyrė tė vazhdueshme Kungim tė tė dy llojeve; qė do tė thotė, tė dyja, si buka dhe vera e shenjtėruar u jepen tė gjithė kunguesve. Normalisht, Katolikėt Romanė i japin besimtarėve tė thjeshtė vetėm bukėn e shenjtėruar. Tradita Orthodhokse ėshtė deri mė sot mė e hershmja. Duke e pranuar kėtė gjė, Kėshilli i Dytė i Vatikanit rekomandoi qė tė rikthehej Kungimi i tė dy dhuratave tė shenjtėruara, edhe pse kjo nuk ėshtė bėrė akoma nė ēdo komunitet tipik katolik tė dielave.

    Orthodhoksėt i administrojnė sakramentet e fillimit - pagėzimin, krizmimin (konfirmimin), dhe Eukaristin sė bashku, ashtu siē bėnte edhe Kisha e hershme. Kisha Katolike Romane i ka ndarė sakramentet bile ndryshoi edhe rradhėn e tyre normale, duke administruar pagėzimin, pastaj Eukaristin, dhe pastaj konfirmimin (krizmimin). Nė disa vende, Katolikėt e njohin traditėn mė tė hershme tė Orthodhoksėve dhe jane duke u pėrpjekur ti rikthejnė praktikat e hershme brenda kishave tė tyre.

    Duke ndjekur praktikėn e Kishės sė hershme, Orthodhoksėt nuk insistojnė qė celibati tė diktohet si njė domosdoshmėri pėr tu dorėzuar prift. Shumica e priftėrinjve tė kishave orthodhokse janė burra tė martuar. Politika e celibatit tė detyruar pėr klerikėt e ndjekur nga Kisha Katolike Romane e ka origjinėn e vetė nė mesjetė. Pėrsėri, shumė Katolikė sot janė duke sfiduar urtėsinė e displinės aktuale dhe janė duke kėrkuar njė kthim nė njė disiplinė mė tė hershme siē mbahet nga Orthodhoksia.


    NJĖ "NDJESI" NDRYSHE

    Edhe po ti lėmė mėnjanė tė gjitha dallimet e veēanta midis Orthodhoksisė dhe Katolicizmit Roman, unė dallova njė orientim ndryshe nė tė dy besimet. Pėrjetimi Orthodhoks i Krishtėrimit, edhe pse ka shumė elementė tė pėrbashkėt me Katolicizmin, ka njė "ndjesi" dalluese, mėnyra se si i mendojnė dhe bėjnė gjėrat.

    Mbase ajo mė domethėnėsia ėshtė mėnyra se si Orthodhoksėt e shohin theologjinė, jo si njė ushtrim i arsyes por si njė pėrpjekje pėr tė shprehur njė mister tė parrėfyeshėm. Theologjia nė Perėndimin Katolik duket sikur ėshtė nė tė shumtėn e rasteve njė pėrkufizim preēiz dhe njė deduksion sillogjistik, tepėr filozofik dhe racional nė natyrė. Nė Lindjen Orthodhokse, theologjia duket sikur ėshtė nė tė shumtėn e rasteve njė ēėshtje dhoksologjie, e pėruljes me njė ēudi nderuese pėrpara tė parrėfyeshmes; ėshtė mė pak e shqetėsuar me prēizionin filozofik dhe mė shume e dhėnė pas pėrjtetimit tė tė pakuptueshmes. Ky qėndrim e gjejn shprehinė e vetė nė bukurinė dhe madhėshtinė e paaritshme tė adhurimit Orthodhoks.

    Pėr mė tepėr, pavarėsisht se unė e respektova dhe qėndrova i mahnitur pėrpara organizatės madhėshtore tė Kishės Romane, po mė lodhnin legalizmat qė mu duk se po e pushtonin pėrjetimin Katolik. Pėr tė qenė i sigurt, vura re se gjėrat nuk ishin kaq tė prera, kaq bardhė e zi, nė sistemin Orthodhoks. Pėrkundrazi, gjeta njė lloj lirie munduese nė tė, njė liri qė tė inkurajon tė jesh i pėrgjegjshėm, jo thjeshtė i bindur.

    Theksi ligjor i Kishės Katolike, siē e zbulova, kishte njė ndikim tė thellė jo vetėm mbi stilin administrativ por edhe nė orientimin theologjik. Shpėtimi, pėr shembull, shpjegohej nė terma ligjore; me vdekjen e Tij, Krishti pagoi dėnimin qė i ishte dhėnė me tė drejtė njerėzit si rezultat i mėkatit - vdekje dhe mallkim. Shpėtimi shpjegohej pra si njė shlyerje e borxhit dhe heqje e njė dėnimi tė drejtė - kategori ligjore.

    Pėr tu treguar i ndershėm, asnjėherė nuk e kisha parė kėtė botėkuptim si shumė tė kėnaqshėm. Pėrse njė Perėndi i dashur duhet tė kėrkonte njė ēmim tė tillė? Ishte Ati me gjithė mend kaq i nevrikosur dhe hakmarrės aqsa do tė kėrkonte vdekjen e Birit tė Tij nė mėnyrė qė tė paqėtohej? Po kėrkoja njė tė kuptuar mė tė mirė tė shpėtimit, dhe e gjeta tek Orthodhoksia.


    QĖ TĖ SHPĖTOSH DO TĖ THOTĖ TĖ TRANSFORMOHESH

    Nė botėkuptimin Orthodhoks, tė shpėtosh nuk do tė thotė qė tė ēlirohesh nga njė dėnim i vendosur nga Zoti. Por do tė thotė qė tė transformohesh prej Tij, tė ribėhesh ashtu siē Ai donte qė ne tė ishim qė nga fillimi! Mėsova principin mbi tė cilin e gjithė tradita shpirtėrore Orthodhokse ėshtė bazuar: Zoti u bė njeri nė mėnyrė qė njeriu tė bėhej hyjni. Ky proēes i hyjnizimit njihet si theosis. Pėr tu siguruar, ne njerėzit nuk mund tė bėhemi dot kurrė Zot nga natyra, por njeriu nuk u krijua qė tė ekzistonte i ndarė nga Perėndia. Shpėtimi duhet tė na kthejė pėrsėri nė kungim me Perėndinė.

    Vetėm duke qenė "i fuqizuar" nga hiri (qė pėr Orthodhoksėt nuk ėshtė njė komoditet i krijuar por vetė Prezenca e Tė Pakrijuarit e pėrcjellė tek krijesa e Tij) natyra njerėzore do tė mund tė jetė ajo pėr tė cilėn u krijua qė tė jetė. Kur flet pėr hyjnizimin, theologjia Orthodhokse ėshtė nė fakt duke folur pėr njerifikimin e vėrtetė, rikthimin e qėnies njerėzore nė gjendjen nė tė cilėn ishin krijuar. Nė kėtė kuptim, ne tė gjithė jemi krijuar pėr tė qenė "pjesmarrės tė natyrės hyjnore" (2 Peter 1:4).

    Theosis mė bėri mua qė tė rigjej dhe ēmoj lutjen dhe sakramentet si takime transformuese me Perėndinė. Fillova tė shikoj njė unitet tė pėrjetueshėm midis theologjisė dhe spiritualitetit. E vėrteta e ungjillit mu bė e dukshme me njė qartėsi tė re. Pavarėsisht se ēfarė ishte Orthodhoksia me aspektet e veta tė ndryshme, unė e pėrjetova at si thellėsisht tė vėrtetė.


    TĖ JETOSH BESIMIN APOSTOLIK

    Pavarėsisht nga tė gjitha vuajtjet e saj - dhe ka plot tė tilla - Kisha Orthodhokse ka ruajtur, pa ndryshim, shtim apo shpifje dėmtuese, Besimin e Apostujve, Besimin e Kishės sė hershme. Kjo ėshtė e mjaftueshme pėr mua, dhe ka qėnė pėr mua burimi i njė gėzimi tė heshtur por tė pėrhershėm.

    Kisha Orthodhokse nuk ėshtė politikisht e fortė, as e pasur, as ndonjė erudite e madhe. Por ka brenda saj Shpirtin qė dėshmon Krishtin, Shpirtin qė ushqen pėrjetimin e Zotit tė ringjallur qė ka ndihmuar tė gjithė tė Krishterėt qė tė besojnė. Tė jesh Orthodhokse do tė thotė tė kesh mundėsi tė shijosh jetėn dhe pėrjetimin e Krishterė nė njė formė tė kulluar. Sepse tė Krishterėt Orthodhoksė, pa vėnė nė dyshim asnjėherė mirėsinė dhe sinqeritetin e tė Krishterėve tė tjerė, afirmojnė atė se vetėm nė Kishėn Orthodhokse mund tė gjendet plotėsia e sė vėrtetės tė Krishterė.


    Ky artikull ėshtė shkėputur nga libri "Orthodhoksia dhe Katolicizmi: Cilat janė dallimet?" i At Theodore Pulcinit, botuar nga Conciliar Press, 1995. At Tedi ėshtė prift ti kishės sė Misionit tė Shėn Marisė nė Chambersburg, PA dhe ėshtė pjesėtar i fakultetit tek Dickinson College nė Carlisle, PA.

    Pėrktheu nga anglishtja nė shqip, Ilirjan Papa. Versionin anglisht mund ta lexoni mė lart.

  3. #3
    .... ...
    Anėtarėsuar
    30-01-2005
    Postime
    4,066
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Nje nga dallimet e tjera te papermendura ne kete artikull eshte Pashka, ose me sakte dita kur festohet. Dihet qe Krishti u kryqezua pas Passover, dhe ne Kishen Orthodokse, Pashka eshte e Djela e pare pas Pasover.
    Ndersa Kisha Katolike e feston duke llogaritur henat (!)

  4. #4
    i/e larguar Maska e Gordon Freeman
    Anėtarėsuar
    03-05-2009
    Vendndodhja
    .
    Postime
    2,808
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime

    Katolik apo orthodoks?

    E hapa kėt temė me qėllim qė me diskutu pėr krishtėrimin se pse kisha krishtere nė vitin 1053 u nda nė krishter tė lindjes dhe tė perėndimit cila ishte arsyeja dhe cfar dallime e ngjashmėrish ka nė mes tė kėtyre dy besimeve sepse un nuk shoh asnjė fakt qė Apostujt apo nė libra tė shejtė qė permendet kjo ndarje pra a duhet jemi ordhodoks apo katolik i vetmi fakt qė ekziston ėshtė dėshmia e krishtit... apo vet emri krishter.... pastaj jam i interesuar edhe dallimet nė veshjen e etėrve,stili dhe arkitektura e kishave dallojn etjetj

    pres pėrgjigje
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga Gordon Freeman : 22-07-2009 mė 15:30

  5. #5
    humble
    Anėtarėsuar
    24-03-2007
    Vendndodhja
    in M.T's heart
    Postime
    639
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Kronike nuk ka dallime domethanse mes dy Kishave. Ndryshimet simbolike rituale nuk e kalojn the critic threshold per tu konsideru. Ortoksizmi dhe Katolicizmi jan thjesht dy emra te ndryshem per nje Kish te vetme! Na duhet te mbesim te bashkum para sfidave e rreziqeve t'perbashkta e jo me highlight vecorit.
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga GANGO of SG : 25-10-2009 mė 15:37
    Yevgeny Rodionov
    Rroft AMERIKA!

  6. #6
    Paqe! Maska e Matrix
    Anėtarėsuar
    02-11-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Nė Zemrėn e Hyjit!
    Mosha
    34
    Postime
    3,123
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Ajo qe mund te thuhet eshte se te dy Kishat sot jane duke bere perpjekje per ribashkim, ndonese rruga eshte e gjate dhe ka veshtiresite e veta

    Hapi i pare ishte shfuqizimi i shkisherimeve te ndersjella.
    Ky shfuqizim ndodhi ne vitet 1960 kur Papa Pali VI u takua me patrikun e Kostandinopojes, Athenagora I
    Krishti: Ne Qiell me lavdine Hyjnore, ne toke me perulesine e sherbetorit!

  7. #7
    humble
    Anėtarėsuar
    24-03-2007
    Vendndodhja
    in M.T's heart
    Postime
    639
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Citim Postuar mė parė nga Matrix Lexo Postimin
    Ajo qe mund te thuhet eshte se te dy Kishat sot jane duke bere perpjekje per ribashkim, ndonese rruga eshte e gjate dhe ka veshtiresite e veta

    Hapi i pare ishte shfuqizimi i shkisherimeve te ndersjella.
    Ky shfuqizim ndodhi ne vitet 1960 kur Papa Pali VI u takua me patrikun e Kostandinopojes, Athenagora I
    Bravo. Keep it up!
    Kam me ta gjet nji nuse ner malsor ty!
    Yevgeny Rodionov
    Rroft AMERIKA!

  8. #8
    i/e regjistruar
    Anėtarėsuar
    12-10-2009
    Postime
    58
    Faleminderit
    0
    Falenderuar 1 herė nė 1 postim
    besoj ne zot dhe studjoj biblen

    perderisa eksiston politika ne cdo kish nuk me lejojn te them te verteten

    me kan torturuar per kete te vertet

    zoti bekoft gjith besimtaret shqiptar amin

  9. #9
    i/e regjistruar
    Anėtarėsuar
    03-11-2009
    Postime
    219
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Citim Postuar mė parė nga GANGO of SG Lexo Postimin
    Kronike nuk ka dallime domethanse mes dy Kishave. Ndryshimet simbolike rituale nuk e kalojn the critic threshold per tu konsideru. Ortoksizmi dhe Katolicizmi jan thjesht dy emra te ndryshem per nje Kish te vetme! Na duhet te mbesim te bashkum para sfidave e rreziqeve t'perbashkta e jo me highlight vecorit.
    A mundet me me sqaru pak per cfare, sfidash,e rreziqesh t'perbashketa.... behet fjale? me c'kuptoj, ketu nuk behet fjale per te bere te krishteret ndonje gje(cfare do nxjerrin .Per lideret (Kreret)per mendimin tim kjo nuk do te ndodhe,eshte thjeshte nje politike qe te mos sulmojne njeri tjetrin se po te merren me doktrinat duke germuar tek njera tjetra do te dalin aq teper ndarje sa vetem nje naiv mund ti besoje kesaj peralle si ato te 1000 e 1001 neteve.
    Keshtu do te vazhdoje deri sa te vije Jezus Krishti.
    Asnjehere nuk do te duan te bashkohen liderat e cdo kishe,dhe te ndajne pushtetet e tyre me te tjere, e pse dote bashkohen jane keq keshtu? Ju harroni se Kisha Katolike ka pasuri te pafund,Kisha Ortodokse po ashtu.po administrimin e parave dhe pronave si doti bashkojne dhe si do te administrojne.(utopizem)
    Po influencat respektive qe kane nder vendet e botes?
    Mos ishte inisiator populli i Zotit,qe u ndane! Duket me shume si deklarate, se sa inisjative aleance?
    Qe s'ka te bej fare me popullin e vertete te Zotit !

  10. #10
    i/e regjistruar Maska e VOLSIV
    Anėtarėsuar
    14-10-2009
    Postime
    873
    Faleminderit
    0
    9 falenderime nė 9 postime
    >>> Kisha duhet te ishte nje e vetme por i ligu nuk rrin kot.
    > Jini te krishtere te mire ne cfaredo kishe qofshi, dhe te jeni te sigurt qe kemi rekuperuar ndarjen e kishave duke qene te bashkuar ne Krisht.
    La verita' ti rendera' libero!

  11. #11
    i/e regjistruar
    Anėtarėsuar
    03-11-2009
    Postime
    219
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Citim Postuar mė parė nga VOLSIV Lexo Postimin
    >>> Kisha duhet te ishte nje e vetme por i ligu nuk rrin kot.
    > Jini te krishtere te mire ne cfaredo kishe qofshi, dhe te jeni te sigurt qe kemi rekuperuar ndarjen e kishave duke qene te bashkuar ne Krisht.
    Amen,
    Qe te shijojme Krishtin, T'ja leme Atij organizimin e Kishes se vet(Nusen e Vertete),Te cilen Ai e njeh,dhe mos merremi me plane e objektiva.Ne si ato virgjereshat te rrime zgjuar,dhe t'i mbajme llampat me vaj gjithmone plot.

  12. #12
    i/e regjistruar
    Anėtarėsuar
    08-09-2009
    Postime
    547
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Ndarja ka qene kryekeput politike, e gjithashtu edhe per mospranimin e autoritetit te Papes nga Kisha Lindore Ortodokse. Edhe pse Zoti e njeh shume mire natyren njerezore, prapeseprape e la Kishen e Tij ne doren e njeriut, duke e lene Pjetrin ne krye te saj. Keshtu na provon se nuk deshiron te beje asgje pa ne. E ja se ku jemi te zotet te mberrijme ne. Shume njerez brenda kishes, jo vetem dje, por edhe sot, e shohin me shume interesin e vet, sesa ndertimin e Mbreterise se Hyjit ne zemrat e veta dhe te te tjereve qe duhet t'i drejtojne.

    Sa per veshjet dhe ndertimet, duhet pasur parasysh se krishterimi kudo ku eshte pranuar ka bere revolucion nga brenda dhe jo nga jashte. Pra, eshte jetuar bashke me traditat e veshjes, ndertimit, kengeve, ushqimit, etj. te nje vendi te caktuar. Keshtu edhe veshjet, ndertimet, kenget, etj. jane te ndryshme ne Lindje e Perendim, Azi, Afrike apo Amerike.

    Duke iu kthyer diskutimit mbi Mbreterine e Hyjit, Kisha Katolike neser e kremton festen e Krishtit Mbret te Gjithesise. Le t'ia perkujtojme kesaj bote materialiste se kush eshte Mbreti i Vertete, se kush eshte Ai qe mbreteron ne zemrat tona, qe na i mbush me lumturi dhe paqe sot e pergjithmone. Njesoj si martiret shqiptare ne komunizem, le ta shpallim edhe ne sot me ze te larte - Rrofte Krishti Mbret!!!

    Qofte levduar Jezu Krishti!
    Adoremus in Aeternum Sanctissimum Sacramentum!

  13. #13
    Shpirt Shqiptari Maska e Albo
    Anėtarėsuar
    16-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Philadelphia
    Postime
    20,020
    Faleminderit
    25
    280 falenderime nė 207 postime
    Per te kuptuar dallimet dogmatike dhe liturgjike midis Kishes Orthodhokse dhe Romano-Katolike, ju ftoj te lexoni artikullin ne krye te kesaj teme qe e gjeni edhe te perkthyer ne shqip. Eshte shkruar nga nje i krishtere katolik i rritur si i tille qe vone zbuloi Orthodhoksine.

    Albo

  14. #14
    Paqe! Maska e Matrix
    Anėtarėsuar
    02-11-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Nė Zemrėn e Hyjit!
    Mosha
    34
    Postime
    3,123
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Qe ka dallime, kjo dihet sepse perndryshe nuk do ishin dy kisha por nje

    Ceshtja eshte a jane keto dallime shkaku i vertete apo thjesht preteksti per ndarjen.

    Marrim psh Filioque. Ai filloi ne shek 6, ndersa ndarja erdhi ne shek 11. Pra i bie qe Kishat lindore per 500 vjet bashkejetuan me Romen pa problem.
    Shume shenjtore orthodhokse qe sherbyen ne Lindje ne shekujt 6-10, kane pasur marrdhenie shume te mira me Romen, mjaft te kujtojme ketu Shen Naumin dhe Klementin e Ohrit si dhe Shen Kirillin dhe Methodin e Bullgarise. Te katert keta kane jetuar ne shekujt 9-10.

    Une mendoj qe per te kuptuar arsyet se perse erdhi ndarja duhen lexuar interpretimet e te dy kraheve, atehere arsyetimi do te ishte me objektiv dhe me i paanshem.

    Jam dakord me shkruesin e artikullit me siper ne ate qe Kisha Orthodhokse ka doktrina te njejta me Kishen Katolike, por perceptime te ndryshme (me perjashtim te Filioque te cilen e sqarova me siper). Por keto perceptime jane plotesuese, mendoj une, dhe jo kundershtuese.

    Realisht ne histori njihen 2 skizma, ajo e Fotit dhe ajo e Kerularit.

    E para ne shek 9, e dyta ne shek 11.

    Ne rastin e Fotit, ai kishte probleme personale me Papa Nikolen. Papa nuk e mirepriti zgjidhjen e Fotit si Patriark i Kostandinopojes sepse partiarku ekzistues (Ignati) u shkarkua forcerisht nga perandori i Bizantit Mihali III dhe u zevendesua me Fotin. Kjo solli reagimet negative qe pasuan. Sidoqofte, kjo skizme nuk ishte aq e madhe sa t'i ndante perfundimisht Kishat.

    Ajo qe i ndau Kishat ishte Skizma e Mihal Kerularit ne vitin 1054.
    Ky patrik urdheroi mbylljen e Kishave te ritit latin ne Kostandinopoje dhe madje arriti deri aty sa te urdheronte edhe hedhjen e Kungatave qe ishin ne Kishat Latine neper rruge qe te shkeleshin me kembe, sepse sipas tij nuk ishin bere sipas rregullave (ishin bere me buke pa-maja). Por kjo ishte nje tradite e pranuar nga te dyja Kishat deri ne ate kohe dhe nuk ishte dicka e re (pra Latinet perdornin buke pa maja dhe Lindoret buke me maja) . Kjo solli reagim ne perendim dhe Papa Leo IX dergoi ne Kostandinopoje nje legate me 3 kardinale me ne krye kardinalin Humberto de Silva per te sqaruar situaten.
    Patriku nuk denjoi t'i priste fare keta per disa muaj. Nderkohe qe papa Leoni IX vdes ne Rome. Kardinali Humberto leshoi nje dokument shkisherimi ne Kishen e Shen Sofise ne 16 Korrik 1054 duke shkisheruar patrikun e Kostandinopojes dhe vartesit e vet.
    Me ane te ketij dokumenti nuk u shkisherua gjithe Kisha Orthodhokse, por vetem Mihal Kerulari. Per me teper ky dokument nuk ishte zyrtar sepse papa kishte vdekur tashme dhe papa i ri nuk ishte zgjedhur ende.
    Por Kerulari, pas kesaj, deklaroi ndarjen perfundimtare me Romen duke e fshire emrin e Papes nga diptiket. Ky veprim u imitua nga gjithe patriarkanat lindore qe dukej se nuk ishin aq te pavarura ne ate kohe nga Kostandinopoja sa te merrnin vendime objektive.

    Ngjarjet qe pasuan e vertetuan se motivet pas kesaj ngjarjeje ishin thjesht deshira per pushtet e Kerularit. Ai me pas rrezoi perandorin e Kostandinopojes (Mihalin VI) duke organizuar nje rebelim dhe e zevendesoi me nje perandor-kukull (Isaakun I Komnen) qe duhej t'i bindej verberisht ketij patriku (viti 1057). Perandori Mihali VI rrezua dhe u detyra te mbyllej ne manastir.Por edhe me perandorin e ri marredheniet u acaruan dhe Kerulari vendosi ta rrezonte edhe kete me synimin per t'u bere vete perandor, por vdiq papritur ne vitin 1059.

    Pra duket qarte se i interesuari per ndarjen ishte vetem Mihal Kerulari, edhe ky jo se donte me fort Orthodhoksine, por thjesht pushtetin e kesaj bote dhe si i tille madje nuk arriti dot te behej nje shenjtor ne Kishen Orthodhokse.

    Duke u nisur nga keto precedenca (kryesisht invaliditetin e dokumentit shkisherues qe leshoi kardinali Humberto),
    ne vitin 1965 gjate Keshillit te Dyte te Vatikanit, Papa Pali IV dhe patriku i Kostandipojes Athenagora I, e shfuqizuan kete dokument.
    Pra keto dy Kisha nuk jane me Kisha armike (nen anatheme), por thjesht Kisha te ndara (nen skizme)
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga Matrix : 23-11-2009 mė 16:36
    Krishti: Ne Qiell me lavdine Hyjnore, ne toke me perulesine e sherbetorit!

  15. #15
    i/e regjistruar
    Anėtarėsuar
    03-11-2009
    Postime
    219
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Citim Postuar mė parė nga Albo Lexo Postimin
    Per te kuptuar dallimet dogmatike dhe liturgjike midis Kishes Orthodhokse dhe Romano-Katolike, ju ftoj te lexoni artikullin ne krye te kesaj teme qe e gjeni edhe te perkthyer ne shqip. Eshte shkruar nga nje i krishtere katolik i rritur si i tille qe vone zbuloi Orthodhoksine.

    Albo
    Per te kuptuar dallimet e dogmave dhe liturgjike midis gjithe Kishave te ndara nder parcela kudo neper bote .
    Po flas thjeshte sepse e Verteta eshte vetem Jezus Krishti.
    Eshte per te qare dhe qeshur ,A nuk ju thashe me siper Kishat luftojne me dogma per pushtet toksor...Shkollat Teologjike shpesh, nuk jane bere per te zbuluar thellsite e Zotit Tone,por per te gjetur e persosur Shigjeta argumentash per t'ja hedhur njeri tjetrit me doktrina e studime biblike.
    E sa shume shigjeta gjen ne Bibel, per t'ja vervitur njeri tjetrit!
    Ne faqe te tjera te forumit ,behen bllok Katolik, Ortodoks,e Protestant e perpiqen t'ju tregojne argumenta, Myslimaneve,e ateisteve,- Se Ne kemi nje Zot i cili dha jeten Per Ne!!!
    Sa mire kur i degjon te flasin aq bukur per Jezus Krishtin.
    Pastaj shkojn neper kishat e tyre dhe mesojne besimtaret e thjeshte , si te behen me te mire,e si ta kene frike Zotin.Por nuk harrohet t'ju kujtohet se Vetem ne kishen tuaj gjendet i Pastert Besimi .....Ndersa te tjeret aq larg jane nga Perendia sa veshtire,se do t'i afrohen parajses! Ata e marrin ashtu sic ja ofrojne, si ai ushqimi i konservuar prej shekujsh.Te ruajtur nder ato godinat e vjetra po drite qe quhet Kisha beton , ku vlen per te ruajtur vetem "Veren Vjeter".Te "thjeshtet" i degjojne plot bindje komentet e Pregatitur nga teologe plot kopetence (sigurisht qe keta, Krishtin e njohin me universitet)me tituj (besoj edhe rroga te mira), per privilegjet nuk diskutohet!
    Sic duket vetem keta kane siguri per celsin e Dijes, Misteret e Moralin e Fese, te Mires dhe te Keqes.Mjafton te jeni te forte e te afte te luftoni brenda dhe jasht -lloit,Mund t'ju jepet mundesia edhe per karjere...
    Luftoni me doktrin, me Bibel ne dore, Vellezerit tuaj te Krishtere qe ,fati i ka bere te lindin aty ku mbizoteron Ortodoksia ,Katolicizmi apo Protestantizmi, per ju eshte njelloj.Kreret Tuaj duan supermaci !....
    -Me fal thoni Ju,Po c'hyn Krishti ketu?!
    Sot po mbroni me delikatese Doktrinat,Ortodoks -kunder Katolike(si PS-kunder PD) Apo(Partizani kunder Dinamo)!! Lexova faqe te tera...Me keqardhje ju them se - Krisht nuk gjeta! as nje thermi ,as nje pike Vere te Re ! .
    Kreret Lider, ata,qe Ju perpiqeni t'i imitoni, ne ceremonte e festave ku marrin pjese me ato puthadore me gjithe religjonet, ndaj gjithe lloje politikanesh e qeveritaresh te cilet i bekojne,me servilizem (per t'ju kerkuar edhe ndonje nder)edhe pse e dine qe nuk kane te bejne fare me Krijuesin .
    Edhe pse e dine gjithashtu si dhe ju dhe une qe Mbreteria e Zotit tone nuk eshte keshtu.
    Mbreti i kesaj bote eshte Engjelli i rene, Paraja,pushteti ,ambicjet per karjera,dhe njeriun i rene.
    E pra si mund te godasim njeri tjetrin,ne argumente, me shkrime per historite, ngjarjet e ndodhura shume kohe me pare nga pasardhes qe s'kane te bejne me ne?Kur ne faqe te tjera i themi njeri tjetrit Krishti te bekofte!A nuk po akuzoni vellezerit tuaj qe po ndjekin Krishtin.(indirekt)
    A nuk eshte sitemi i turpshem formave te organizmit Fetar nder shekuj, qe nga Shtypja e butonit nga Konstandini?shkaku i vertetei doktrinave pa fund!
    Per se me tema te tilla ? pse te behemi shigjetare fetare, te krishtere shqiptare kunder krishtereve shqipetare. Nuk i beni dot dem as nje fije floku sistemeve fetare(cila do qofte) me argumentet tuaj,se jane aq te konsoliduara , me Organizim,me Pasuri(prona e para) me godina Kishash gjigande betoni e cdo gje tjeter qe ju duhet.
    Udheheqje te strukturuara mire, sa cdo shtet laik i madh do ti kishte zili. Bashkepunues shume te ngushte me Pushtetet e qeverite, shpesh behen edhe sherbyes te politikave te tyre,duke mos harruar qellimin kryesor te cojne sa me shume te thjeshtet te mbushin kishat te djelave!
    Jo nuk me duket e drejte qe te krishteret te futen neper labirinthe, mistike,ku nuk ju afrohet Zoti i Tyre ,ku nuk gjen as edhe nje fjali ku te shijosh perjetime te thella te Jezus Krishtit, te ushqehesh me Krisht, apo vargje te Kengeve te Krishtera, te dale nga dashuria per Krishtin..e te tjera gjera interesante , nga vellezer e motra qe marrin pjese ne kisha te ndryshme dhe derdhin Krisht dhe ushqejne njerin tjetrin ketu bashke ne kete forum.
    Le mos t'i veme perballe njeri tjetrit vellezerit!
    Le te shtojme Dashuri nder Ne!
    Le te veme ne dukje ato qe ndertojne dhe Bashkojne!Jashte strukturave te kishave tradicjonale .
    Vetem Krisht te Paster!
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga Luani33 : 23-11-2009 mė 10:11

  16. #16
    Shpirt Shqiptari Maska e Albo
    Anėtarėsuar
    16-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Philadelphia
    Postime
    20,020
    Faleminderit
    25
    280 falenderime nė 207 postime
    Skizma midis dy Kishave nuk eshte nje "aksident historik" as nje "faj peshkopesh e patrikesh", as nje "perplasje ideologjike apo per pushtet" midis Konstandinopojes e Romes. Skizma ne thelb te saj eshte e ngritur mbi nje fakt te thjeshte:

    - Te ruash e trashegosh te pacenuar besimin apostolik qe na lane Apostujt e Eterit e Kishes, apo ta cenosh kete besim per ta bere ate me te pranueshem per kohen dhe njerezit. Vete misioni i Kishes se Shenjte Orthodhoks, mision i dhene nga Vete Perendia, qe perben edhe qellimin e ekzistences se saj, eshte deshmia e Vertete dhe e Plote e Besimit qe na mesoi Krishti dhe Apostujt: jo vetem cfare besonin, por edhe si adhuronin Perendine, ana liturgjike. Nese Kisha Orthodhokse do te lejonte qe "per hir e unitetit me Kishen Katolike" te kompromentonte kete besim duke pranuar inovacionet e Perendimit, ajo do te pushonte se ekzistuari si Kishe Orthodhokse, nuk do ta meritonte me titullin Orthodhokse. Kurse kendveshtrimi i Kishes Roman-Katolike eshte i tille qe jo vetem i lejon inovacionet e prodhuara ne shekuj, por i njeh Papes se Romes edhe te drejten per te krijuar dogma te reja nga Froni i Shen Pjetrit. Sikur nje Patrik Orthodhoks te guxonte te bente te njejten gje nga Froni i Shen Ndreut, ai do te ndiqej si heretik nga te gjithe besimtaret e thjeshte orthodhokse.

    Gjeja tjeter qe ju ngaterroni jane "ndjenjat humaniste" me kungimin e shenjte me Krishtin. Dashurine e Krishtit nuk e shijon dot pa hyre ne Kishe e pa marre pjese ne dhuratat e shenjta shpirterore qe vetem Kisha i ofron: Kungimin e Shenjte. Pra uniteti yne si te krishtere orthodhokse me Krishtin e Kishen, nuk eshte nje "unitet njerezor", nje unitet i ngritur mbi nje levizje ideologjike qe kerkon te bashkoje kisha ne nje; eshte nje unitet shpirteror, kur shijojme gjakun dhe mishin e Krishtit. Kendveshtrimi i shume nga ju nuk ndryshon shume nga kendveshtrimi i shume humanisteve ne bote qe jane per "paqe boterore" e "unitet boteror", por qe kete unitet e paqe nuk e kerkojne duke besuar e perjetuar misteret e Kishes.

    Dhe skizma ne Kishen Orthodhokse nuk duhet pare vetem si dicka e keqe; po, eshte per te ardhur keq qe pati nje skizme ne Kishen e Shenjte Katolike dhe Apostolike, por kjo ishte e nevojshme, pasi vetem ne kete menyre Kisha e mban trupin e saj te paster nga herezite dhe mesimet e gabuara. Dhe po ta mendoni thelle thelle, ruajtja e pacenuar dhe e plote e besimit te vertete te krishtere, besimit orthodhoks, eshte me e rendesishme se cdo gje tjeter: me e rendesishme se uniteti i jashtem kishtar apo ideologjite e politikat e kohes. Po humbem kete besim orthodhoks, kemi humbur gjithcka, kemi humbur rrugen per tek Perendia.

    Albo
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga Albo : 23-11-2009 mė 13:05

  17. #17
    Paqe! Maska e Matrix
    Anėtarėsuar
    02-11-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Nė Zemrėn e Hyjit!
    Mosha
    34
    Postime
    3,123
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Sidoqofte Albo, une do e vleresoja shume ate qe ka bere Papa Gjon Pali II, i cili kerkoi falje per gjera qe jane bere nga katoliket ne shekujt e meparshem. Ky ngelet nje shembull i mire dhe nje shprese per ta pare te ardhmen me optimizem
    Krishti: Ne Qiell me lavdine Hyjnore, ne toke me perulesine e sherbetorit!

  18. #18
    Paqe! Maska e Matrix
    Anėtarėsuar
    02-11-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Nė Zemrėn e Hyjit!
    Mosha
    34
    Postime
    3,123
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Po keshtu dua te shtoj se nqs skizma nuk do te kishte ndodhur, historia e Evropes do te kishte qene totalisht ndryshe.

    Pse e mendoj kete? Sepse nqs njera pjese e trupit vuan, pjesa tjeter duhet te mundohet ta sheroje, jo ta heqe si te panevojshme.

    Le te meditojme per nje moment se si do te ishte Evropa sot nqs kjo skizme nuk do kishte ndodhur.

    Kostandinopoja do ishte akoma nje qytet i krishter, Shen Sofia do te ishte akoma nje katerdrale orthodhokse. Ballkani (duke perfshire dhe Shqiperine) do ishte nje territor 100% i krishter. Inkuizicioni dhe Kryqezatat ne Perendim nuk do kishin ndodhur. Fenomeni i nacionalizmit te semure nuk do zhvillohej ne ballkan. Protestantizmi nuk do te kishte lindur. Shekullarizmi edhe nqs do ekzistonte, nuk do kishte permasat qe ka sot. Ndoshta asnje nga lufterat boterore nuk do ishte zhvilluar.

    Keto qe thashe me siper mund te duken si nje idealizem, por po te thellohesh pak e kupton se keto fenomene qe linden ne mijevjecarin II, ne menyre direkte ose indirekte lidhen me skizmen. Dikur dy qendrat e Krishterimit - Roma dhe Kostandinopoja - perbenin nje ekuiliber dhe balancim forcash. Kur ky ekuiliber u prish, gjithe situata nderkombetare ndryshoi. Secila qender e krishtere e mbronte qendren tjeter dhe ne njefare mase "e detyronte" te rizbulonte pasurite e besimit te krishtere sa here qe kishte lekundje nga pikepamje njerezore.
    Krishti: Ne Qiell me lavdine Hyjnore, ne toke me perulesine e sherbetorit!

  19. #19
    Shpirt Shqiptari Maska e Albo
    Anėtarėsuar
    16-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Philadelphia
    Postime
    20,020
    Faleminderit
    25
    280 falenderime nė 207 postime
    Po keshtu dua te shtoj se nqs skizma nuk do te kishte ndodhur, historia e Evropes do te kishte qene totalisht ndryshe.
    Njerezit besimtare nuk pyesin "Si do te ishte historia e Evropes nese X e Y nuk do te kishin ndodhur... ?" njerezit me besim luten: "Beme o Perendi te denje te shoh Vullnetin tend ne jeten time." Qe do te thote se besimtari nuk e humbet kohen e tij me revizionimin e historise, cfare do te ishte e cfare nuk eshte, por mundohet qe te beje nje jete te denje per syte e Perendise, me shpresen se Perendia do ta shohe te denje qe t'i dhuroje dhuraten e vizionit qe vjen nga lart, te kuptuarit se pse historia e njerezimit eshte ajo qe eshte.

    Nuk duhet te harrojme, qe kur vjen fjala tek Kisha, nuk eshte vetem qoftelargu e ushtria e tij qe sulmojne Kishen, por eshte dhe Fryma e Shenjte e Perendise qe e mbron dhe vepron brenda Kishes, ne shpirtrat tane, e rrjedhimisht edhe ne historine e njerezimit. Premtimi i Krishtit per ne eshte qe askush nuk do te guxoje te preki Kishen e Shenjte Katolike dhe Apostolike dhe besimin e shenjte orthodhoks qe kjo Kishe ruan e ua transmeton brezave.

    Nuk duhet te udhehiqemi nga vullneti yne i ngushte njerezor, duhet te lutemi qe Perendia te na beje te denje te shohim planet e Veta per jetet tona.

    Albo

  20. #20
    "Nė fillim ishte Fjala" Maska e toni77_toni
    Anėtarėsuar
    09-09-2005
    Vendndodhja
    Kosovė
    Postime
    4,382
    Faleminderit
    20
    13 falenderime nė 13 postime

    Dallimet e Orthodhoksisė me Katolicizmin


    Ju pėrbej, o vėllezėr, pashė Emrin e Zotit tonė Jezu Krishtit: jini tė gjithė njė mendimi e tė mos ketė pėrēarje ndėr ju, por tė jeni nė pėrkim tė plotė me ndjenja e nė mendime. Sepse, o vėllezėr, njerėzit e Klojes mė lajmėruan se mes jush ka grindje.

    Ja, ku e kam fjalėn: secili prej jush thotė:

    “Unė jam i Palit!”

    “Unė i Apolit!”

    “Unė i Kefės!”

    “Unė jam i Krishtit!”

    Vallė, a qenka Krishti i ndarė? A mos u kryqėzua Pali pėr ju? Apo u pagėzuat nė emėr tė Palit? (1 e Kor 1; 10-11)


    Dhe, njėmend, derisa nė mes jush tė ketė smirė e grindje, a thua nuk jeni tokėsorė, a thua nuk silleni nė mėnyrėn e njeriut thjesht lėndor? Sepse, kur ndonjėri thotė: “Unė jam i Palit” e njė tjetėr: “Unė jam i Apolit”, a nuk jeni vetėm njerėz thjesht natyrorė?

    Po ēka ėshtė Apoli? Ēka ėshtė Pali? Shėrbėtorė, me anė tė tė cilėve ju e pranuat fenė. Secili veproi sipas dhuratave qė Hyji i dha: Unė mbolla, Apoli lagu, por Hyji bėri qė tė rritet. Kėshtu: nuk ėshtė gjė as ai qė mbjell e as ai qė lag, por Hyji qė bėn tė rritet. Ai qė mbjell e ai qė lag janė tė barabartė. Secili sipas mundit qė tė ketė bėrė, do ta marrė shpėrblimin. Sepse ne punojmė sė bashku nė punėn e Hyjit; e ju jeni ara e Hyjit e ndėrtesa e Hyjit. (1 e Kor 3; 3-9)


    respekte
    Gjej kohen tė lexosh, ėshtė themel i tė diturit.

  21. Anetarėt mė poshtė kanė falenderuar toni77_toni pėr postimin:

    mesia4ever (02-09-2014)

Faqja 1 prej 7 123 ... FunditFundit

Tema tė Ngjashme

  1. Dallimet ne mes te Kuranit dhe Bibles
    Nga imaas nė forumin Komuniteti musliman
    Pėrgjigje: 2
    Postimi i Fundit: 13-05-2013, 15:53
  2. Te suksesshmit dhe deshtaket si dallohen
    Nga Letersia 76 nė forumin Filozofi-psikologji-sociologji
    Pėrgjigje: 13
    Postimi i Fundit: 08-11-2009, 09:05
  3. Dallimet mes Evropės dhe Amerikės
    Nga Andrra e Jetes nė forumin Problemet ndėrkombėtare
    Pėrgjigje: 31
    Postimi i Fundit: 06-10-2003, 03:27
  4. Cilat jane dallimet midis rinise se Kosoves dhe Shqiperise?
    Nga Arjeta nė forumin Tema shoqėrore
    Pėrgjigje: 140
    Postimi i Fundit: 26-01-2003, 23:10

Ruaj Lidhjet

Regullat e Postimit

  • Ju nuk mund tė hapni tema tė reja.
  • Ju nuk mund tė postoni nė tema.
  • Ju nuk mund tė bashkėngjitni skedarė.
  • Ju nuk mund tė ndryshoni postimet tuaja.
  •