www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Papal heresy?

Really, I thought it was the official teaching of the Orthodox Church to not speculate who can go to heaven outside of Orthodoxy. Am I wrong about this position?

Anyone is entitled to their own opinions. If I am not mistaken those Orthodox bishops and theologians who "speculate" are doing just that speculating and not speaking for the whole church. This is in contrast to official teaching like Dominus Iesus.

I have not condemned anyone. If it appears that I condemned anyone it would be bad journalism.

Back on the topic of the clarification on Salvation outside the Church. If the teachings of the Church where so clear before Vatican II then why did the issue have to be raised in Vatican II?

Admin,

Ok, I see where you were going with this. My reply was wrong. If the quote from the Pope was his opinion then using my line of reason it would be ok.

You are correct on this point my apologizes.

I believe it was Jesus who mentioned that he had to tend to those outside the fold. I will have to get back with the quote.

Joe

When we ask the question, "Who then will be saved?" we also have to remind ourselves of something about God.
We must begin with the fact that God wants the salvation of alland does not want to exclude anyone; we mus base ourselves on the fact that Christ died for all men and that the Church is a universal sacrament of salvation, as the Second Vatican Council teaches.

Stephanos I

Shlomo Stephanos I,

It has totally supprised me that no one commented on my point about the Noahide Laws and salvation posted earlier in this thread.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Ray:

You posted " . . . why did the issue have to be raised in Vatican II?"

It probably had to be raised because of deeper understandings that came out of the Council. The new approach that ALL of the baptized were somehow part of the Catholic Church, though sometimes not formally, made it unclear who was outside the Church.

Prior to Vatican II, we were taught that those who were outside FORMAL communion or outside the visible parameters of the Church were outside of salvation, too. It caused much friction between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant ecclesial communities. There was no allowance made for anyone. Church practice was to conditionally baptize Protestants when they came into the Church, for example, because we were taught that even their baptisms had no effect.

Vatican II took a different approach to the same set of phenomena. People in communities other than the Catholic Church retained baptism. So, since baptism is a function of the Church, somehow these people must have some link to the Church. If they have some link to the Church, they're not outside the Church. We also have to consider that any Christian may baptize in case of emergency or when someone is in danger of death and would ask for it. I guess it might be best compared to the Orthodox Church's approach: we know where the Holy Spirit is working (in the Church) but we don't know where else He is working.

So Vatican II called Catholics to take a different look at those who through no fault of their own were baptized but who did not formally belong to the visible Catholic Church. The Council called us to repent that history wasn't all black and white. It called Catholics to understand that we were as much at fault as others when it came to the divisions among Christians. It's one thing to be careful about preserving the Deposit of Faith. It's another to ride roughshod over one's brothers, who Christ also wishes to be saved, when there is a disagreement over what actually the Faith is or how it is expressed.

The dialogue that began in the last century between and among the Churches and ecclesial communities has brought this out. In many areas, we are talking about the same things but approaching from a different angle. Then when we throw in the problems of moving from one language to another, we begin to see that some areas where there have been disputes for centuries aren't really areas of dispute, but differences in language perception and difficulties in translating concepts from one language to another.

Finally, Vatican II brought us to understand that people outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church are not "outside the Church" unless they CHOOSE to be. That allows for a little less of us being God and judging. Someone who walks out and shakes the dust from his shoes is far different from one who says that he just can't find the way to believe as we do. What the Council and the Holy Father are saying is that these latter cannot be automatically written off as lost forever.

In Christ,

BOB

Yuhannon, God Bless!

I must say that I have never heard reference to such a teaching, and, to tell the truth, I am a bit concerned that it sways too much towards universalism.

First, salvation is through Christ and his Church alone, and I think that this argument that you bring up runs contrary to this, for it would mean that Christ is not necessary for salvation, only the avoidance of those rules you described. But this is clearly counter to the faith.

Moreover, I worry about the historical veracity of your claim. Your post is the first that I have heard making the claim that ancient Hebrews thought that those outside the people of God could be saved. Certainly the Hebrews thought that a non-Jew could become incorporated into the Jewish community, but I am unconvinced that they felt it was of no salvific benefit to be among the chosen people of God.

Given this, I think such an argument would need to be backed up by a bit more scholarly research than has been presented here. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I am skeptical and unconvinced.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

Shlomo Jeff,

Thank you for the blessing, but you can consult with any Rabbi about the Noahide Laws and Jewish understanding of Salvation.

The Churches teachings, are just an expansion of said principals.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Well I didnt comment because salvation even in the OT is dependant upon Jesus. How?
They were saved by their faith in the Messiah as they looked forward to his promise, just as we look back to his sacrificial offering.
I forget the theological terminology used to describe this.

Stephanos I

Stephanos, this is my understanding as well, which is perhaps why I am confused with regards to the teachings of the ancient Hebrews. Did they truly believe that one could attain salvation outside of membership within the chosen people of God, or did they believe that God might, through some mysterious means, recognise the genuine and faithful attempt of non-Jews to live good lives, and thereby incorporate them into the covanental relationship?

Not a claim, just a question

What I find disturbing here, in my often simplistic way of thinking, is that it appears we're telling Moslems, Jews and others that "You don't really have to believe that Jesus is the Saviour".

Shlomo Lawrence,

What Catholic, and the other Apostolic Churches are saying is that if a person never has the opportunity to become a Christian, MAY be saved because they have lived a holy and just life.

If one has had the opprotunity to hear the words of the Lord and rejected him, then they have no chance of Salvation.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yuhannon

I think where we have a real point of contention is with the statement "Have never had the opportunity". There are probably millions of Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists who have a better basic understanding of the tenets of our faith, than many nominal Catholics. Somehow though I can't imagine a Vatican official in this day and age acknowledging that they have rejected Christ.

theophan wrote:

"Vatican II took a different approach to the same set of phenomena. People in communities other than the Catholic Church retained baptism. So, since baptism is a function of the Church, somehow these people must have some link to the Church. If they have some link to the Church, they're not outside the Church. We also have to consider that any Christian may baptize in case of emergency or when someone is in danger of death and would ask for it. I guess it might be best compared to the Orthodox Church's approach: we know where the Holy Spirit is working (in the Church) but we don't know where else He is working.

So Vatican II called Catholics to take a different look at those who through no fault of their own were baptized but who did not formally belong to the visible Catholic Church. The Council called us to repent that history wasn't all black and white. It called Catholics to understand that we were as much at fault as others when it came to the divisions among Christians. It's one thing to be careful about preserving the Deposit of Faith. It's another to ride roughshod over one's brothers, who Christ also wishes to be saved, when there is a disagreement over what actually the Faith is or how it is expressed."

First of all, I have to take issue with the "different approach"? How legitimate is this? Can we also take a different approach to the Trinity as well? (Let us remember as well that Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, it intentionally contained no anathemas. So what if I reject anything it said? The Council doesn't condemn me, these is not "anathema sit.")

Secondly, to compare a Lutheran baby who is baptized Lutheran to a Lutheran theologian is a moot excercise. Clearly the child is not at fault, but to say that a Lutheran theologian is invincibly ignorant is just kidding yourself. They know history and they know Scripture, thus it is highly LIKELY that they are heretics with full knowledge of what they are doing. Thus, it is very much a Lutheran bishop's fault that he (or she )) is outside the Church. No amount of ecumenical meetings can solve this; indeed, to meet with them on equal terms is a great sin against charity on the Catholics' part. They have failed to preach the Gospel in its fullness, that includes unity with the Church.

What is not culpable is the defense of the true faith in the face of error. True, we are sinful humans, and the way we go about things is not perfect, but St. Nicholas did not have to apologize to Arius for punching him. Sins against charity unfortunately go with the territory in apologetics, I am not defending them. But heresy, to quote a Desert Father, separates us from God, and is a far worse sin.

I am not calling for a new Inquisition or anything of the sort. I am merely warning that, no matter how "nice" we want to be, there are some hard truths that are non-negotiable. Everybody has hope for salvation in this life, but negotiating the Faith will not grease the wheels with anyone.

"Let us remember as well that Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, it intentionally contained no anathemas. So what if I reject anything it said? The Council doesn't condemn me, these is not 'anathema sit.'"

I grow tired of this error being repeated. Vatican II issued two Dogmatic Constitutions as well as one Liturgical and one Pastoral Constitution. We are required to give assent and obedience to them and all the other proclamations of the Council. Just because anathemas were not issued does not remove their obligation.

Fr. Deacon Lance