www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Conversion to Orthodoxy

What exactly is "good hope?" Is it a heresy to be confident in God's mercy and have good hope that somehow God will reach all with His mercy and grace?

Joe

If "good hope" cannot be maintained for those outside the Catholic fold, then doesn't that imply that the vast majority of souls outside of communion with Rome are likely damned? One thing I get from the tone of pre-Vatican II encycles is that while there is the qualifier, "invincible ignorance," it seems apply only to those savages out in the jungle who've never been given the opportunity to hear the Gospel and the necessity of obedience to the pope. What seems to be implied is that the vast majority of us (including me) are not "invincibly ignorant." I know that for myself I"ve studied enough patristics to know that I am not "invincibly ignorant" if it is really true that communion with the Pope necessary for salvation. I think that some of the papal teachings quoted in this thread make the assumption that the vast majority of us are not invincibly ignorant and that anyone with a good conscience would in fact be shown the light of the (Roman) Catholic faith. Here is where I see the incongruity between pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II teaching. Even if there is no technical contradiction, there is a contradiction in the spirit of the teaching. I think that we have to look beyond merely the words of the documents and get at their intended meaning. And when we do that, I think it is clear that pre-Vatican II popes intended something very different from what is said in Vatican II and in some of the words of recent popes.

Joe

Orthodoxy has also made both statements, not to contradict Herself, but to clarify that one cannot be outside the Church and gain salvation while also understanding that God is merciful. It is a Great Mystery...

As to what the pre-V2 Popes 'intend' vs. the post-V2 Popes.. I'd think it is irrelevant, since it isn't a matter of an individual's intent as it is a matter of how the Church interprets Herself in a particular place, at a particular time.

So the only thing that is relevant is how the church chooses to interpret these things right now? And if in 50 years, the church interprets things differently then the way the church interprets these things now will be irrelevant? Is this "development of doctrine?" I can't help but think that it is more like perpetual historical and doctrinal revisionism. Or am I wrong here?

Joe

My apologizes. In reading my own post - it did not come out in the way intended. It can be read too personally - I do hope Gordo knows my vast respect for him and his faith. I have told him of my respect for him several times. That respect has not changed.

My posts became too casual .. the way friends sometimes talk when talking about foot ball and such.

Gordo - I beg your forgiveness.

-ray

Ray,

My brother - thank you for your note. Please do not give it another thought! I gladly forgive you and ask the same. Believe me - I enjoy a vigorous discussion as well (usually over Asahi beer and cigars...I enjoy such a discussion with my Orthodox friends in Japan after DL). As an extravert according to Jungian typology, much of my own processing and thinking happens on the outside. I write and think at the same time! Dialog is very important to me, and I certainly do not believe that I have all the answers.

The respect is mutual and applicable to others. I appreciate the wonderful discussion with Joe, Andrew, you, Alex, Alice, and many others. Not all of us agree on everything. But I believe I have learned much from those with whom I disagree!

And I think we all desire the same thing: to be faithful to Our Lord, to be saints and to reach heaven.

Too bad I am leaving CT soon....I would enjoy visiting you in Meriden over beer, cigars and theological discussion!

God bless,

Gordo

Joe,

I think I know where you're coming from, but look at it this way. Since there is no official teaching on exactly which individuals are invincibly ignorant, a wide variety of viewpoints are acceptable, ranging from "only jungle savages" to a large portion of non-Catholic humanity. The Church only officially teaches that invincible ignorance exists, not in exactly who. So whatever Church authorities say about who is and isn't is based on their own interpretations and the signs of the times.

I prefer to go with what centuries of saints and Popes have leaned towards: that those people who are invincibly ignorant are smaller in number than most theologians are suggesting these days. Not because I like to be exclusive, but simply because there is a long-standing tradition behind those beliefs.

But of course we don't know and the Church has never contradicted herself officially on the subject. My point is, who cares what Popes offer as their personal opinions? It doesn't make it true. And even though more recent Popes have taken different personal stances on who might be invincibly ignorant than earlier ones and I prefer to side with tradition, those earlier Popes were just offering opinions, too, and may not be right. And who really cares? Really in my view the answer doesn't even matter; we are called to convert all to the Catholic Faith, that I know wholeheartedly. What happens to those outside of it is out of our control. Why bother pondering on it? Leave it up to God.

Alexis

I guess, Joe, I don't see how you think the Catholic Church has officially contradicted herself on the matter?

Alexis

Thank you so very much. You are a true friend!

I must admit now that I am going trough some stages. Now that Infallibility has fallen apart (for me) ... it is like the death of a loved one.

Recently a close cousin of mine died. She was 45. But she was addicted to prescription drugs for a long time. At first news -- it was a shock. I did not want to believe it. Then came depression. Then anger at her for being so stupid as to go and die on us! And finally acceptance that she is gone.

I am going through the same thing regarding Infallibility. When I actually studied it - it died on me. It fell apart. At first it was shock and disbelief. Then it was depression, I think I have to admit it is anger right now. Anger that such a mistake has wounded the entire church. I now really know the frustration our Orthodox friends feel. We Catholics have been so blind .. so unwittingly and unintentionally arrogant. I ask them to forgive us (we know not what we do).

I only explain my feeling to you so you can understand what is taking place in me.

I think it best - for now - that I leave the board for a time. What I would want to do is fly to the Vatican and bang on the doors and yell "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!!! Come down here and face me!!"

I do not see the mistake of Infallibility as any thing more than a grand mistake. Human nature falling to the pressures of empire building. Unwitting. But exactly like a freind I loved who has died - I now go through these emotions which I do not think I will be able to hide. And I may take out my angegr on fellow Roman Catholics - and surely they do not deserve that. Nor will they understand it.

So I must admit .. I am very human.

I do not really wish to disturb anyone's beliefs. Our beliefs are so very important to us. Foundational to our entire personality.

So I need to take a break from the forum. I will return after I finally come to terms with these things.

Right or wrong - thank you for understanding I am just a human.

Peace and good conscience to all.
-ray

It would have been considered an act of apostasy prior to Vatican II. This is something Sheptytsky and Slipyj preferred imprisonment over conversion to the Orthodox faith.

Dear girlangel63,

Sheptytsky was not only persecuted by the Orthodox - he was persecuted by Roman Catholics and quite nastily.

In fact, Sheptytsky rescued many an Orthodox hierarch fleeing the Red terror, including Russian aristocrats (as did my grandparents in their parish). Today, the Polish Catholic hierarchy is very much against his Beatification since they regard Andrew Sheptytsky as a "traitor" to Poland and the Polish Church.

Both Holy Hierarch-Confessors witnessed to and defended their Church at all times.

It is too simplistic to say that Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor went to Siberia for "Rome alone."

That is neat but not the whole story by a long shot. He suffered to defend his Church and people. This is something that we North Americans often have difficulty understanding, at least some of us do. Religion and culture/nationality are intertwined in the East. And so what Patriarch Joseph defended was a "package deal."

Also, this thread uses the term "conversion" to describe people moving between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and vice-versa.

Is it "conversion" in the true sense though? The Orthodox in Eastern Europe had a (justifiable) aversion to this word since EC missionaries used it in their work to bring Orthodox "back to the Roman fold."

Personally, I think we should can the term "conversion" and use another word for this process.

At least one EC theologian/professor I knew said that "every Eastern Catholic has the privilege to return to his or her Mother Orthodox Church."

If my UGCC decided to join with its Mother Orthodoxy (when it decides to get its canonical act together), there is little doubt the majority of UGCCers would go without blinking an eye.

Alex

Dear Joe,

As a result of the Catholic "Development of Doctrine" who knows what old Catholic pronouncements really mean for today's RCC?

If you do, please enlighten me!

Alex

Ray,

How was Papal Infallibility fallen apart for you? Would you care to explain?

This isn't a trap, just an appreciation of the very different insight you sometimes bring to discussions. I have found myself disagreeing with you in the past, but the way in which you explain your thoughts is very unique and interesting. So, if you feel inclined, I'm sure there are a few of us who would like to hear.

Alexis

Well that was weird (my first post)!!!

I'll second that!!

Prayers to you Ray during this time.

Aaron