Hi,

My name is Jason Brim. I just want to take a moment to introduce myself. If I don't, then Pani Rose will get on my case.

I'm a fairly recent convert to the Catholic Church (2001). As my conversion was rather sudden I did not, as I usually do with something that drastic, thoroughly research Catholicism before joining. Much to my consternation that is now catching up with me and I am bombarding myself with questions about doctrine, history, et al.

I graduated from Cranmer Theological House back when I was an Anglican (1998). Started out as a Baptist though. Became a staunch Calvinist (praise God im out of THAT mess)and finally an Anglican and then on to the Catholic Church. Im sure some of you, or maybe most of you, have been down similar roads so you know what its like.

I'm currently in a Roman rite parish but am not terribly happy with it. We have 3 priests all of whom are good men. Thats something to be thankful for. However, I have always been drawn to Eastern worship. Almost went into Orthodoxy a number of years ago. My best friend did go into Orthodoxy and is now a monk. LOL I can't argue with him because no matter what the topic, Orthodoxy is simply right (so he says). I sent him a copy of the post in East and West on "things the west can do right a way" and he nit picked the whole thing apart. *sigh*

From what I have seen so far on this forum theres a lot of nit picking but hey, thats what forums are for. But, this forum at least is interested in ecuminism between east and west and I think that is great.

Ok, enough about me. On to my topic.

I hope im not beating a dead horse with this on. I searched the forum and found a few places where it was brought up but didnt see anything dedicated to it.

Ok, "No salvation outside the Church" is one of those topices that is now coming to haunt me. In the past 2 months I have been happy, sad, depressed, crying, angry and bitter over what I have read or heard this topic means. Whether we like it or not, this is a largely emotional topic. Our opinion of what it means doesnt change the out come of history in the least.

So, what think ye on this topic?

Jason

Hello Roman Redneck,

I'm an Armenian Redneck, (part Armenian part Southener) not a Byzantine, but I'll give you my opinion which you can take or leave.

No Salvation outside of the Church is no big deal. All it means is if someone knows that the Church is true and rejects it, they're doomed. Everyone else still has a possibility of salvation based on what they do with the truth which has been given to them. Only God knows to what degree each of us have been shown the truth and how faithful we've been to this truth.

There's only one true Church. Catholics and Orthodox are true Churches having true Mysteries or Sacraments. I recommend to you to join that part of the Church where you believe God is calling you. If you do this, you will have no regrets. If the Orthodox were not (according to Catholic Church teaching) also true Churches, then the Pope of Rome would be self-condemned. This is because he asked an Orthodox Church which sought to restore Communion with Rome, to hold-off until all of Orthodoxy is ready to reunite with Elder Rome. But he is not self-condemened because he knows that the Orthodox are truly part of God's Church. Therefore he stands as a beacon of ecumenism in modern times.

Hope this helps,
Ghazar

May God rest the soul of Father Leonard Feeney, but the axiom "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is better expressed in English by the sentence "there is no salvation apart from the Church". That is a true statement; salvation means incorporation into Christ. The problem is in itself false; what could it mean to "go to heaven" and refuse incorporation into Christ?
We are called to extend the invitation to all men (in the inclusive sense of that expression). That leaves the question of what happens when someone dies having no connection with the Church - and that question is not really our responsiblity; we confide the person to the mercy of God and we rightly avoid probing too closely into matters which are none of our business. If you wish to pray for someone who was dear to you, and who died in such a circumstance, I suggest offering the Lord's Prayer and at the phrase "Thy will be done", crossing yourself and asking that God's Holy Will be done in the specific matter of that particular person. If you want more, there is a tradition that one should pray the Canon to Saint Varus for such an intention. [I learned that from the Old Ritualists, who have no reputation for doctrinal liberalism!]
Otherwise, again, do not probe too deeply into this matter.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Hello, RomanRedneck!

I think the best way to understand this is to go back to the Catechism of the Catholic Church's paragraphs 838, 846-848. This is the official teaching on the subject and Catholics, to the best of my understanding, should use this explanation and exclude alternatives (I am no ecclesiological expert, though).

This can be found online at www.usccb.org. [usccb.org.]

To my understanding this teaching is bascially the same as what Ghazar said. The issue caused me quite a bit of grief for a while, and I don't remember what text finally reconciled me to the CCC's interpretation (maybe it was Father John Hardon's Catholic Catechism?). If you think one of the priests is a good man, why don't you get on his schedule and try to talk to him about it?

Anyway, I agree with incognitus. I wouldn't get worked up on the issue, and I would avoid running through mental gymnastics like "who is in the Church? what would happen to a South Sea islander who never saw a missionary in his life?".

I would certainly stay far away from polemics, especially those devoted to denegrating or coverting by fear those of other faiths, stating that such and such a person or group will be damned.

Thanks guys for your responses.

I want to throw some ideas out and see what you think. For all i know these are heretical but im just playing around with em.

Scripture tell us that we in the church are a kingdom of priests, a royal priesthood. To whom is the church a priest? Isn't the answer the nations?

IF that is true, does that not imply a rather optimistic perspective concerning those who are not in the church? What I am thinking is that the Church as the body of Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation but it is not necessary to be in the church to be saved. And in fact historically speaking, the church has always been and may remain only a certain percentage of the worlds population. The catechism says that those who are outside the church are in some way 'related' to the church. Can that relationship be described as one of sinner to priest (aka intercessor)?

A passage of scripture that illustrates what I mean is in Job. At the end of the books God tells Jobs three lousy friends to take animals to Job and he would sacrifice them on their behalf and pray for them. Well, Job represents the church and the three lousy friends represent the world. We see that Job regularly offered sacrifices but as far as I know he is not called a priest in the whole book. He certainly was not Hebrew. And that harkens back to Melchizidek who was a priest 'among the nations' of God Most High. Again we see someone who, this time is called a priest, offers sacrifices to God on behalf of the nations. I surmize that we know this because he called God "God Most High" which is the term used by the nations to refer to the Creator, whereas Abraham referred to God as "the LORD" YHWH, a more intimate term.

So before or very near the time of the establishment of the "church" with Abraham, there were other priests of God. It would be interesting to speculate on how they became priests in the first place, I suppose they did so by revelation and not on their own whim. But the point about the Melchizadek story is that we see a movement from Melchizadek to Abraham as the more intimate place where God dwells. God, in some sense removed himself from the nations, an I think this is carried out by these non hebrew priests disappearing. WHy did they disappear? I suggest becasue now, Abraham and his line are the chosen priests of God. Notice I did not say chosen people but priests. Certainly they were Gods people, im not denying that. But the purpose they played in salvation history is that of a priesthood to the nations. There was an internal priesthood, Levitical, yet the entire body of the people constituted a priesthood. Again, if they are all priests then to whom are they priests? I think it must have been the nations. Look at what happened to Israel. On the one hand they were punished by God and dispersed among the nations. Both good and evil people alike. Well, if God is just then he could not punish the righteous along with the wicked so if there were righteous people among the exiles they must have been SENT to new lands for some purpose other than punishment. I suggest it was to carry the knowledge of the LORD to the world. They were scattered all over the place. Synagogs were erected in every city etc. From one perspective, they were to evangelize and bring people into the true religion. On the other hand, regardless of whether people came into the church, they remained priests to the nations.

So if that is true under the old Covenant, why can it not be true now but in reality and not just prototype?

Is religious coversion to the church necessary for the nations? Or are they brough along to salvation through the intercessions of the church? Granted people come and go out of the church all the time. But the vast majority of people in the world will never set foot in a church during their whole lives. These people are not going to convert to Catholicism or ORthodoxy or even Protestantism. It just seems to me that if the church is a kingdom of priests she cannot be priest to herself, she must be priest to those outside of her.

In the NT I point at the closing chapter of the book of Revelation v 17: "And the Spirit and the *bride* say come. and let him who hears say come. and let him who thirsts come and whoever desires, let him take of the water of life freely."

This verse does not *prove* my point but I think it is interesting that there is no implication of anyone calling for people to join the church. Instead we hear the bride, the church, saying Come. Come where? To drink of the water of Life. Well, we all know that this is talking about communion with God. We don't have any water drinking rites (at least as far as I know). Jesus spoke of this water to the woman at the well and in numerous other places. And while it is clear that this communion cannot take place without Jesus, i think it does not appear that there need be any conscious apprehension of him to have it. Certainly all religions are not the same or of equal value. Catholicism, Christianity, is the truth and all other religions in and of themselves are false. And we are to issue the call to one and all to repent and believe the gospel and so come into the church. But there still remains the vast majority of manking to deal with. Can they be saved? Yes they can. How? Through the priestly intercession of the church and the sacrifice of the mass.

I don't know what you guys think, but my perspective on history is very long term. Christ may return tomorrow or he may return a billion years from now. That said we need to take the future seriously. Eventually we are going to colonize the solar system and possibly beyond. Now, just for fun, imagine a world like Star Trek with millions of worlds inhabited by at least *some* humans. Can you imagine the difficulty of mission work in a universe like that?

It would be well nigh impossible. Can you imagine ecclesiastical affairs? Whoah! Something like that is in our future. And there will be Trillions of people in it who never hear the gospel. How will the Church answer the call in that nearly impossible situation? I suggest she does whatever kind of mission work she CAN do and then interceed on behalf of the nations and leave the rest to God.

jason

Hello Jason...

First, having read Ghazar advise - it is excellent.

Second, may I address �No salvation outside the church� from a Catholic perspective. But before I do, let me echo Glazar�s advise to bind yourself to which every particular church that you think you are called to� be it Latin related (associated with Roman Catholic) or Orthodox related.

�No salvation outside the church� is a phrase taken from the documents of early church Councils - and must be understood within the context of those councils and the events those councils were addressing.

It is true that many Catholics have used that phrase out of context - and it is true that many others also think that they understand how Catholic understand it to mean - and they too are off base.

First off, Glazar explains it very well, and what I say is only in addition to his own explanation.

In its original intent the phrase was applied to members of the Church who were excommunicated as heretics. And it held the meaning of - those heretics who fully knew well the truth regarding some aspect of Church theology (revealed items of faith such as God being a Trinity) and willingly reject it and teach otherwise - causing scandal to the church - are not to have the sacrements.

It has never held the meaning that anyone who wishes to be saved must be a member of the Church.

The Church teaches that daily Providence - is the primary means of salvation. And Providence comes to all men� no matter a man be Catholic, Jewish, Buddist, etc� sanctification depends upon Providence and how well we attend to conscience. The sacraments of the Church have the one purpose to assist us as we live daily Providence. Salvation is therefore available to anyone who lives according to a good conscience.

For example - let us imagine for a minute that you lived within the early centuries of the formation of the church - and you became a member of the church - and you learned well and fully understood some items of revealed faith. Revealed faith are those few items which one MUST believe to be a member of the church and are not obtainable by human reason alone. For example - let us take the human nature of Jesus. Let us imagine that you were explained about the divine and human nature of Jesus - and you understood that well. And, for some reason which would bring benefit to yourself - you began to teach (in the name of the church) that Jesus did not have a human nature but was really only a figment of imagination (a phantasm). And, your teaching was causing great harm to the church. You KNEW the truth - and you fully understood it - but for whatever reasons of personal benefit - you decided to willingly teach a falsehood instead. What you have done is that you have rejected what you knew to be true - in favor of teaching a lie or falsehood. Sonce God is bound to truth and reality - then you have clearly and knowingly and willingly - rejected what you knew to be the truth and what is real - and your public teaching (in the name of the church) is causing great confusion to church members who do not know any better.

In rejecting the Truth (Jesus was fully human) that you full well knew and understood - and by teaching otherwise (as if it were the true teaching of the church) you have - yourself - rejected truth and reality and you have rejected - the church - and any means of salvation the church could extend to you. You have willingly and knowingly placed your self outside of the church - for reasons to your own personal benefit.

Once the church determines that you have not done so our of error, misunderstanding, or inability to understand properly - the church can ask you in an official way - to cease teaching the falsehood. If the church determines that you have misunderstood the doctrine - it is required that the church offer to re-catechism you. If you still refuse - then the church can declare that you are excommunicated (not in community with the Church) and you are not to be given the sacraments (the means to salvation that the church is entrusted with).

Excommunication is an official statement and declaration by the church - that you are a member of the church - but not in community with the church. Excommunication does not mean that anyone who is excommunicated is automatically condemned to hell - the church has no powers by which to do that or determine someone�s damnation. And any of the churches determinations do not extend beyond its own membership.

The statements itself �No salvation outside the church� does not mean that non-members of the church can not obtain heaven or sanctification - it means that members of the church who fall away from community with the church and willingly try to do harm to the church by knowing teaching what they know to be false doctrine in the name of the church - are not to be allowed the sacraments.

It was essentially a �membership� rule for the operation and membership of the church - and does not apply to non-members of the church.

At times, members of the church have taken this to the extreme. That is because the church can have a theological definition of �anyone gaining heaven automatically becomes a member of the church�. The thought here is that anyone in heaven - is - a member of the universal church in as much as the church is the body of Christ. In THAT sense you can say �there is no salvation outside the church� because that assumes that that heaven and the church triumphant - are identical. This is true in as much as the church is �the group of people� and heaven is the state of being sanctification after death. But the same thing can not be applied to the church - militant (still alive down here).

So I have given you its original use and meaning - and how it is came to be confused. You should not assign any infallibility to it and should see it as a response in context to the many heresies at the time of these councils - and see it as simple reasonable rules by which to organize and operate the human organization of the church.

At the time of these councils the word we translate here to say �salvation� was used simply to mean - the sacraments entrusted to the church. Eucharist, confession, marriage, ordination etc.. They were considered the �means of salvation� given to the church that it may dispense to its members. Think of it to say and mean that - the sacraments of the church are not to be given to non-members and not to be given to members who defy the church. It is that simple.

Incognitos also mentions what may be a better translation with: "there is no salvation apart from the Church" and it should be understood that the word and context means both �outside� and �apart� and it should be noted that to be �apart� is to have once been united to but now separated from - something. For example to be �apart� from your family or apart from your wife assumes your membership of unity with family or wife. It is a separation from original unity.

And those who were never members of the church can not be apart from what they were not members from in the first place. So you see - the quote in question does specifically apply to those who have severed community by defying the tenants which the community hold.

It also holds the meaning that any sacrements severed from the church - are not valid. And so clergy who have been dalcared as heretics and still preform sacrements - these are not valid. There is no scremental presence. Sacrements must be united to apostlic authority - to be valid. If apostilic authoriy severes itself from priests who are preforming sacrements those 'sacrements' are no longer valid.

The Othodox, and the Byzantines and other churhes united to the Catholic church - all have valid sacrements.


-ray

Ghazar,incognitus,LatinVisitor, and Ray,

Thanks for your replies guys. Usually i don't get so worked up over a topic like this. I'm pretty good about being sufficently emotionally removed to be able to think objectivly. However on this topic I have had a friend, who I now recognise as a Feeneyite, muddying the water. Since I come from a protestant background he was telling me that all my family was damned unless they became catholics. I only fell for that one night in which I bawled my eyes out thinking my grandmother was in hell. But reason returned with the morning. Thank God. I wrote my friend and told him if that was the God of Catholicism I would rather die and go to hell with the Orthodox and the Protestants than to worship such a god. Anyway that ended my one night stand with Fr. Feeney. But it did raise all the questions in my mind about all the many historic quotes on the subject and how some seemed to "prove" the rigorist position. This has bothered me so I did as much research as I could on the net and finally ran across several essays by Fr Most. Pun inteded, they were Most helpful. Also I believe it was here in this forum somewhere that I found a refrence to a book called Salvation outside the Church? I cant recall the authors name because the book is outside on the swing. Anyway whoever recommended this book I salute you and I will grovel at your feet. You said you saw it at amazon for about 70 bucks or so but I found it at ABEbooks for 22.00. So I bought it and it has been a godsend. Traces the development of the doctrine from the second century to Vat II. It very much cleared whatever mud there was left in the water. So again I thank you.

As for the posts you guys have left, I appreciate your insight and experience. I have never really considered that I might justifiably become Orthodox and not have to worry about it. I will definately have to consider that option.

To answer one of your questions as to why not contact one of my priests and chat with him, I havent becasue I alredy know what he thinks. He's completely in line with Vatican II. But I didn't feel that he would be able to give me an objective perspective. I know its a sad thing when you have to say that about your priest, but i have to say it. He's a good man but he's not terribly shall we say, gifted. His answers to questions tend to be too practical and steer far from the intellectual way of looking at things. At any rate, now that I am settled on the issue I just might have a chat with him. We are due for a lunch date anyway.

So, once again, thanks for your replies.

Jason B.

I do not think it's fair to insinuate or say directly to RomanRedneck that one's salvation is not jeopardized by leaving the Catholic Church (i.e., the Catholic Church that is the Communion of 22/23 sui iuris Churches in full communion with the Roman Pope).

Logos Teen

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RomanRedneck:
[QB] Ok, "No salvation outside the Church" is one of those topices that is now coming to haunt me. In the past 2 months I have been happy, sad, depressed, crying, angry and bitter over what I have read or heard this topic means. Whether we like it or not, this is a largely emotional topic. Our opinion of what it means doesnt change the out come of history in the least.

So, what think ye on this topic?

Hello, Jason--

The topic just seems to be controversial and too emotional one, but actually there is nothing like this in it. The main problem in various discussions on it is caused by mistaking the concept of the Church for that of a denomination. The latter is absolutely different from the former. The Church as such consists of God-Man Jesus Christ and all the people who have willingly joined Him in His death and, therefore, resurrection. Thus, the phrase �there is no salvation out of the Church� just implies that a person cannot get the everlasting (that is divine) life without his/her unity with the Creator, the only source of every kind of life. And since we have no instance of connection between the divine and physical natures, except the Embodied Lord Jesus from Nazareth, there is nothing to do but let Him in ourselves at the Eucharist, the common divine and human feast. In short, this newly created God-men unity is the very Church (or Ecclesia in Greek), without which any individual salvation is impossible. So the topic is acceptable enough to discuss and there is no background for people, belonging to different Christian denominations, to feel insulted. The only term of anybody�s Christianity is belonging to a congregation really connected with the Creator through the God-Man Jesus, the only way ensuring to convert the mortal mankind into divine one.

Valerius

I don't believe that this is correct - it is too close to religious indifference and minimizes, even eliminates, the necessity of the sacraments. We know salvation is available to a member of the Church who receives the sacraments with a good conscience. We hope that those who do not receive the sacraments (i.e. non-Catholics and non-Orthodox) can obtain salvation, but in all honesty, we don't know. If they are saved, it is through the Church, the means of salvation, that they are saved. It is dangerous to put one's conscience as the means of salvation; please show me where the Church teaches that "Daily Providence" alone saves someone.

Whereas I believe that the Orthodox receive the saving grace of the Sacraments, and I don't think it is necessary for them to convert to Catholicism for salvation, I don't think I would agree that you do "not have to worry" about becoming Orthodox. A Catholic who leaves the Church in union with Rome could be considered as rejecting the Catholic Church, which is necessary for salvation. This is different from someone born Orthodox, or converting to Orthodoxy from a non-Catholic religion - these people have not consciously rejected union with Rome as a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy would - they have accepted the Truth of Orthodoxy. As a Catholic, we believe that one cannot consciously and with full knowledge reject union with Rome and be saved.

Then I guess I'm in trouble according to your understanding, Francis. I don't agree with you on this. I think for the right reasons one could transfer from an Eastern Catholic Church to an Orthodox one and be quite justified. Of course Rome won't officially say this, because she'd loose half the Eastern Catholics and tick off the other half. Yet I think this is exactly what Balamand points to.

Trusting In Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Dear Francis and Ghazar,

This is a touchy subject, to be sure.

But I've actually heard Eastern Catholics, including one theological professor, say that Eastern Catholics always have the prerogative to return to their Mother Orthodox Church.

I don't know under what circumstances this would apply.

The interesting thing I find is that it is a general principle that Rome does not question Orthodoxy's canonizations and there are RC reps present at such who obtain copies of the icons of the saints being glorified etc.

This occurred also in the year of our Lord 2000 when the New Martyrs of the Bolshevik Yoke were glorified as saints.

Among their number were, as we know, several who were former EAstern Catholics and had become Orthodox - later dying for Christ as Orthodox Christians.

Such was also the case with Saint Arsenius Matsievich, Metropolitan of Rostov, also glorified at that same time as a New Hieromartyr.

He was an Eastern Catholic who became Orthodox after attending a Jesuit seminary in Poland . . .

The famous "Monk of the Eastern Church" Fr. Lev Gillet was associated with Met. Andrew Sheptytsky when he became Orthodox in London, I believe.

Yet, I've met a Studite EC monk who told me he met with Fr. Lev long ago and asked him at what point he became Orthodox.

And to this, the monk said, Fr. Lev replied that he "never repudiated Catholicism" and considered himself to be in communion with Rome!

I'm still unclear as to what Fr. Lev's status with respect to Orthodoxy really was.

Alex

Jason,

I was searching for this Scripture as it came to mind while I was reading the post.

"O Lord, our God Jesus Christ! Through Thine own pure lips Thou hast said that if two shall agree on earth concerning any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them ' by My Heavenly Father, For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:18-19).

In my search I found this story, I think it was told by Solzhenitsyn from one of the footnotes. But, it really illustrates this Scripture reference and the fact that according to Psalm 22:3 God ihabits the praises of his people. �Where two or three are gathered in My name�� A chapter from the Russian samizdat manuscript, "Hieromonk Arseny" http://www.roca.org/OA/75/75h.htm I think you can find your answer. The Fathers of the Church wrote a lot about this statement made by a theologian wrote "When we truly worship the Lord, we absorb His person. We drink in His attributes. When we do, He realigns our reality. He rearranges our perspective." So if we have become Christ like, then my instinct is we are his, for we could not become like his son for any other reason. Anyone who is like Him would be hard pressed to be outside the "church" being the Body of Christ.

Pani Rose

I'm trying not to present "my understanding" as dogma, nor am I trying to judge certain individuals, but am trying to present Catholic Church teachings on this matter.

The reality is that the Catholic Church believes that it is a seriously grave matter (i.e. one effecting salvation) to not be in union with Rome. However, the Church has always said that one must give "full consent of the will" in order to have a grave matter be considered mortal and therefore risk one's salvation. I would say that most "cradle" Orthodox could very easily be seen as not giving "full consent of the will" to reject Rome, as they are simply following Christ in their "home" church. However, someone who explicitly leaves Union with Rome, either for Orthodox or other non-Catholic groups, could seem to be giving the consent of their will to reject Rome.

Of course, God is always the ultimate Judge of any person's actions, intentions, and consent, and therefore their salvation. I have no idea of the heart of someone who leaves the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church, and their reasons, intentions, etc. But if they truly believe all the Catholic Church teaches, they should at least give serious pause before making that move.

This was exactly what I was pointing to when I referred to the Macedonian Orthodox. They expressed "full consent of the will" to retore unity with Rome and were asked to desist on this path by elder Rome herself. If what you have presented as Catholic doctrine is true, both the Macedonian Orthodox and the Pope must be guilty of mortal sin. None of this fits with the obvious facts and none of it fits with the current ecumenical relationship between Rome and the Orthodox Churches, let alone the Balamand Agreement. Believe me, I used to hold the same position, but when you read the joint statements and agreements and look at the actions of the Church, this just doesn't fit. It is much more understandable when applied to Protestants, not Orthodox.

I left Armenian Catholicism for Armenian Orthodoxy. What my intentions in this might "seem" to some people might be very different from the truth (which is known to God). This is why it is better to leave the judgement to God (as you mentioned) rather than saying that such a person has rejected the Catholic Church and therefore can have no salvation. And only a fool would make any ecclesial change without "giving pause" before doing it. I gave it about a ten year pause. On the other hand, others never get out of the pause, they spend the rest of their lives "paused" out of fear of being damned (for following God's call in their hearts). I wouldn't want to see Roman Redneck or anyone do this, and this is why I wrote what I did in my first post. As I said before, he is free to take or leave my advice.

Trusting in Christ's Resurrection,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Hi guys,

For those who wrote with concern about a somewhat flippant move from Rome to Orthodoxy, you need not worry. I made my comment off the top of my head and have no intention of persuing the issue further. But thanks for your concern.

I have written something about this in another thread: I am trying to dialogue with someone who is more or less a Feeneyite. He's not rabid but he truly believes the rigorist position of "no salvation outside the church". I don't know how he does it but when I talk to him he seems to have an infinite supply of quotes on hand to rebutt anything I might say. It's terribly frustrating. This fellow has told me that he really believes his father is damned becase he is Orthdox. To me this is beyond my ability to grasp. All I can do is shake my head and wonder. Can any of you point me to a website or book that has the information I need to talk with this guy?

I know, some of you will say just quit talking to him. On the one hand I could do that but if I did I would always have a nagging feeling that he just might have been right. So I guess im saying I need clear proof for myself as well.

Knowing what one "wants" to believe is one thing, but being subjectivly certain is quite another; at this point I do not have that certainty.

Jason B.

Oh and btw, I really am a redneck. Just imagine for a moment the Divine Liturgy or the Mass in vernacular for us southerners. lol

RR -

Can't point out books or websites at this point. I would recommend however the Vatican II document Nostra aetate(http://www.papalencyclicals.net/vatican2.htm). I also do not know the person you're refering to in particular, but would make a few points about this kind of thinking, based on my admittedly low understanding of the subject.

Faith dictates that the Church, meaning in the body of the Bishops in general (and for Catholics the Pope of Rome as the head of the Church) is infallible and will never err. This is the key to this subject.

Someone can come up with millions of quotations and attempt to use them as proof texts, be they from the Bible (Protestants) or from the Bible, Patrology, the works/lives of saints or the Magisterium ("Traditionalist" groups with a Catholic background - I would characterize many culturally Orthodox groups in the same way, though they don't misuse Catholic Magisterial documents).

I have seen similar lists of quotes which advocate Sedevecantism, Feeneyism, or several other such ideas. The quotes DO NOT validate the thesis because:

a. their use contradicts the policy of the body of bishops and the Church (led and represented by the Pope of Rome if you're Catholic), which are infallible.

b. the quotes are frequently used without a greater understanding of the broader document or its purposes.

For instance, one can quote various Pian Popes to state that the kind of democracy practiced in the US and Western world is an un-Catholic form of government, but nevertheless all the quotes one would find are taken from documents formulated to specifically condemn a movement by which democracy and "liberalism" were used to bring about a secular society divorced from the Church and to undermine the infallibility of the Church. [as an aside, I think this context is an important part of the First Vatican Council's definition of Papal Infallibility] The documents target the fruits of the Enlightenment and the French revolution, not necessarily the ideas behind the United States or several other modern democracies.

Moreover, a democratic system of government is certainly compatible with and maybe even preferable according to the relevant teachings the Bishops, the Pope, and the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes.

Thus, all the hypothetical quotes from various documents do not prove the case. The proof is in the Bishops and the Pope representing the Church, especially when the Pope speaks on matters of faith and morals. I also feel that on less grave ecclesiastical doctrine such as this the Bishops and Pope should be followed.

I think this is the best context in the fight against Feeneyism; remember that the Church rejects this sort of thinking for given reasons. Find out what the background behind the Church's opinion is, and demonstrate that the quotes are taken out of context.

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is much easier to understand than the truth and those who are wedded to it are frequently unconvertable by reason and long arguments. But, with God, anything is possible.

Those who are more knowledgable, please expand on or correct anything I said above.

I think the example of the Macedonian Orthodox does not conflict with my statements, nor does it indicate that the Holy Father is in mortal sin on this matter. I am talking of someone leaving the Catholic Church, not someone wanting to join, and being asked to hold off. You could very easily say that they are "united to Rome" in their heart, if their intention is to unite, but they are being ask to hold off on doing so by Rome.

However, what you say does make a good point. I don't claim to know what "Catholic teaching" is on this matter, as it seems to me to be fluid and open to various interpretations. I think it is pretty clear-cut to me for Protestants - they need to join a apostolic, sacramental church. But the Orthodox? I'm not sure. I definitely don't believe that they are damned, or that the grace they receive from their sacraments is in any way lesser than Catholic sacraments (and therefore their ability to gain salvation is equivalent to Catholics'). But I'm still troubled by the idea of someone leaving the Catholic Church and union with Rome, for any reason, or for any church.

Frankly, I personally would love to believe that all members of the Catholic and Orthodox churches are on an "even keel", and that movement between the two does not effect in any way one's salvation (if done for the purpose of drawing closer to Jesus, of course). But I'm just not sure if I can believe that and be consistent with Catholic doctrine and belief. Needless to say, I can be hopelessly muddled at times.

My point was to address RomanRedneck's seemingly flippant remark about leaving for Orthodoxy (which he has since cleared up). An action like that should never be done without serious prayer and consideration, and looking at all the ramifications - like the point I brought up about leaving union with Rome. As a convert myself (from Methodism), I know it should involve a tremendous "pause" to jump to another church.

(BTW, can you put up a reference to the Macedonian Orthodox wanting to reunite with Rome and being rebuffed? I've never heard that before).

LatinVisitor,

You did a good job with addressing this issue. I have found that many Roman "traditionalists" (using their term) that believe in a strict understanding of "outside the church..." use the same hermineutical methods that my Protestant fundamentalist friends use when intepreting the Bible. They take one or two lines from some document long ago and base their entire theology on it. To their minds, every sentence of every encyclical is infallible by itself - there is no need to read it in context. Yet they don't think you should do this with the Bible for some reason. With the Bible, they agree that one must look at context and interpret accordingly. If the inspired Word of God must be interpreted according to context, surely even infallible church documents must be as well.

Ultimately, it is the duty of today's college of bishops united to Rome to provide the valid interpretation of these past documents. And they have clearly and overwhelmingly not supported the position of the Feeneyites, which should be the end of the story.

Dear Jason,

The Roman Catholic Church has gone from there is no salvation outside of the Church predicated on union with the see of Peter to anybody and everybody can be saved no matter what they believe. This sort of inconsistency of teaching is the result of the Roman Catholic Churches departure from Orthodoxy and it Patristic reliance and produces detrimental self inflicted positions and tumultuous considerations.

The fellow that has told you that he really believes his father is damned because he is Orthodox is articulating the teachings conveyed by the Roman Catholic church for quite some time. For the Orthodox are considered schismatics. However, nowadays the Latin's are readjusting their thinking and statements depending on who you speak with. The fellow is uttering blasphemy against the Orthodox Church and here Saints. Such statements proceed from demonic influences and your troubled disposition by his words is shared. Dismiss it and consider for what it is, the barking of a wild vomiting dog. As for this fellow print this out or email to him and tell him that I'm sure the Orthodox Saints want and pray for his salvation whether it is of any avail is contingent upon his disposition and attire and the adjustments he can make while he has time. Tell this fellow the way it works in hell is the more the demons torment the less they are tormented, for a while anyway, but the blasphemous flames they fuel always catch up to them rather fast. The suffering is indescribable I'm sure. It's best for the soul of any man not to play with hell fire or spit it with the demons now or latter. Can a tear be shed then to quench the flames or do they evaporate to quickly to pour into a hand to drink them? Tell this man for the sake of his soul and the effects he has on others, the sooner he drinks them the better.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "


I remain an Orthodox Christian in Christ with a few tears in my eyes.

Matthew Panchisin, the son of an Orthodox Priest of thrice blessed memory.

Have this fellow email me, for I would very much like to speak with him.

MatthewPanchisin@yahoo.com

Dear Orthodox Catholic,

Your right! "This is a touchy subject, to be sure".

Most of the Orthodox churches in my neck of the woods do not require a Catholic convert to reject anything of the Catholic Church. Reasons for that I will not get into. Subjects such as the Primacy of the Patriarch of Rome are simply - left alone. The Patriarch of Rome is also a Patriarch equal to other Patriarchates and that is explained and described. No rejection of the Catholic Church or Catholic doctrines or theology is necessary. The only thing necessary is the desire to join oneself to the Orthodox church and learn its ways. It is a conversion of �the Orthodox do it - this way � � and that is about it. No rejection of RC or accusations of heresy or anything like that.

Do all Orthodox priest do it this way (no rejection of RC necessary)? No. And guidelines among Orthodox churches vary on the �conversion� process. In many cases the local Orthodox priest is allowed to apply the guidelines in a reasonable and fitting way. So there is much personal discussion between the priest and the one coming from the RC to the Orthodox - it is a step by step process according to what the priest sees as fitting and required. A very personal thing.

Also - most Catholics are entirely unaware that the RC does not ban a change of rites and churches within the universal Church. One may - in concert with permission from his RC bishop - transfer to any of the Eastern churches - Orthodox included - as well as to any (Copt, Byzantine, etc..). The bishop would like to see that the transfer or �conversion� is not one of rejecting the Latin church - but rather one of attraction to the other church. Do all RC bishops understand this? No. Any RC who wished to change churches should first speak with his own priest to find out what the proper way to do it is.

Things are changing. If not from the top down - from the bottom up. For example, I am a RC and I have full permission from my own RC Church to have any Orthodox priest as my spiritual director. All I had to do was explain my love for Eastern theology - and ask - and permission was given. No problem no hassles.

-ray

Um, could you please provide some proof for this assertion about what the "Roman" Catholic Church teaches? And also some proof that this is a teaching that has changed? I believe the Church has taught about the "Baptism of Desire" since the Council of Trent - perhaps that's what you were thinking of?

Right. I agree. There is no 'across the board' answer one way or the other. There are many conditions which must be considered. And so it is a case by case basis.

-ray

Dear Rayk,

Here is a question that I've often agonized over.

Is it better to remain in a liberal Catholic parish where one's traditional faith is assailed and otherwise in danger, when one could easily join a traditional Orthodox parish, all other things being equal (no other Catholic parish nearby etc.)?

Over to you, O New Aquinas!

Alex

What you have expereinced is members of the Catholic church - perhaps charged with teaching or perhaps not - and non-members of the Catholic church - giving you thier own misunderstandings as if it were - church teaching.

Cheers.
-ray

Dear Rayk,

Yes, Matthew forgets that Orthodoxy has its liberals too!

A friend who is now an OCA priest and I were driving to attend a conference together.

We drove by an Antiochian Orthodox Church.

The priest then turned to me and remarked, "There, but for the Grace of God, goeth I!"

But what do people want from those poor Antiochians?

Alex

Dear Dolly,

And there are Orthodox who believe that many Orthodox won't be saved . . .

There's always another Orthodox jurisdiction that is more Orthodox than the - you know!

And there is the saying someone once said: "Orthodox or death - as long as it isn't the Antiochian Church!"

Alex

Dear Friends,

One precipitating factor in the decision of EC's to return to their Mother Orthodox Church has to do with their view that the FULLNESS of their Eastern tradition is to be had only in the Mother Church, sans Latinizations.

Theirs is a desire to no longer be in "schism" from the majority of their co-religionists of their national church.

We often understand the division of East and West along terms of faith only.

But there is another aspect of the painful sense of division that only EC's really know.

That is when Ukrainian Catholics or Armenian Catholics feel alienated from the majority of their fellow countrymen who share an identical tradition (ideally unLatinized) but yet are cut off from communion with each other over union with the Pope etc.

And, over time, there are those who come to the conclusion that being in union with the Pope just isn't worth that alienation.

How they come to that conclusion is a separate discussion, but we in the UGCC have had priests leave to join the Orthodox, and we still do for those and other reasons.

I would also suggest, and in this I certainly do agree with Matthew Panchisin, that Rome's perceived watering down of certain dogmatics and rapprochement with the Orthodox actually helps kick-start the process for EC's to begin considering the move to Orthodoxy.

Ultimately, we EC's can see that, as we've discussed on this forum many times before, we've everything in common with the Orthodox.

Even those doctrines papally proclaimed are already part of our Orthodox heritage, in pith and substance, as we've also discussed.

So when we come to view the question, "What does Rome give us by way of faith that we don't already have?" the answer is simply, "Rome itself as a source of unity."

And yet, if that is all that communion with Rome gives us, then for many EC's it is not "unity" at all, but an historical and contemporary experience of division within our national Churches and communities (as the New Catholic Encylopedia also says about the Union of Brest).

For many of us EC's, union with Rome has meant the enduring pain of separation and alienation from our brothers and sisters who are Orthodox - an alienation that also reaches into our very families and is something that our RC brothers and sisters really are at a loss to truly understand.

Many EC's stay in communion with Rome because of habit, convenience or because in their districts EC membership is more "culturally relevant" than Orthodox membership - as is the case among Ukrainians especially.

But it wouldn't take much to tip the scales if push came to shove and for the above reasons.

Union with the Pope just isn't something that many EC's would consider a "defining point" of their overall religious/cultural identity that extends to their entire community.

And if union with the Pope means the peace of "unity" - then our experience with it has been something totally different.

Alex

Alex,
A profound post. You have summed it up quite well. Thank you.

Rayk,
Two posts ago, I really identified with what you wrote as well. Well put.

Francis,
I understand what you are saying. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain. I hope I've been equally clear in what I'm saying.

Trusting in Christ's Resurrection,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

A few months back I assisted an RC - to begin attending the Orthodox church. We did a lot of talking (she had false guilt surrounded her feelings of leaving the RC). You would be surprised at what we found out about transferring to be under another Patriarch. There is no ban in the RC about transferring to be under any Eastern Patriarch. After easing her mind - she now attends Orthodox Liturgy and bible studies - while receiving the sacraments in the RC. She is under no pressure to decide if she will �convert� - or not. And there is no rejection of the Papacy nor any requirement to declare anything of RC doctrine or theology as heretical. Providence has opened a door for her - if she wishes to transfer. It is His church and Providence can do anything it wants to do. For many months now she has been enjoying the family of the Orthodox church and spirituality - while remaining a Catholic. Her local Catholic parish was also not a good experience. She can convert or not - no problems for anyone involved.

Now as to your question above� believe it or not � much of this depended upon the conscience of the individual you are speaking about. There are many questions to ask and they all revolve around - conscience.

Right now we have some plants growing inside in boxes. They are growing well in this protected environment. It is not yet time to move them to the garden. So what we do is take them outside for direct sun and let the wind buffet them a bit. That makes them grow stronger. What is strong inside where nothing troubles it - is weak outside when faced with natures ways. So what we do to strengthen them is place them where they are blown around a bit and get dried out and then watered - and feel the extremes of the outdoors. I would guess this is uncomfortable to them. That makes them stronger so that when they are later put out into all the rain, wind, and cycles of temperature - they will do fine.

I am not really sure that the man or lady you are speaking of - is in any real danger of losing his or her faith. It may be uncomfortable for him/her but my little plants are uncomfortable when I take them outside too. I wonder too - if that person�s faith might be even better now because of the situation that God has placed him/her in?? I wonder what God intends to do with these plants?

I would advise nothing - without first trying to determine what God may be doing with that person. If I could. Other than that primary determination - if he or she be in the Orthodox or RC - it matters not. One church must not be rejected for the other - but from your description that is not what this person would be doing. What is happening to him/her in the Catholic parish - just might also happen in the Orthodox parish too.

In summation - it is a personal case and I have no across-the-board recommendation. Perhaps it would be best for that person to try attending Orthodox Liturgy and services regularly - while maintaining the sacrament flow through the RC?? Take things slow and easy. But does that really matter? And why not just jump into the Orthodox church?? He/she could do that too.

My personal senses is that God would not mind one way or the other - which church. And that this person�s personal providence would - follow him/her. Most people go to church and are very content no matter what the ceremony is like or what the priest is saying. The person you describe has an inner - love - and interest - in God. And that - in itself - sets up a bit of an irritation for others who SHOULD be interested in God but are instead content with feeling 'saved' by having the �proper membership card�. If I were a spiritual advisor I would tell this person �Do what you will - and let me know in a few months how you are.� But, I am not a spiritual director.

-ray

Dear Theist Gal,

Pope Boniface's VIII Unum Sanctum which states:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: "One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her," and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God . In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism . There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed......... (more text then the end) Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

The Orthodox Church and her Saints have not subjected themselves to the bishop of Rome with hence had been and are still considered schismatics by many in union with the Bishop of Rome, it depends on who one speaks with and their understanding to the best of my knowledge.


In retrospect, my comment "The Roman Catholic Church has gone from there is no salvation outside of the Church predicated on union with the see of Peter to anybody and everybody can be saved no matter what they believe." would have been better expressed NOT to imply that a Roman Catholic can believe whatever they want, for that is clearly not the case. But I had Vatican II in mind.

Vatican Council 2 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal salvation"

Dear Alex,

No, I have not been remiss in memory as you have expressed in your sometimes distant and not so distant observations and forgotten that Orthodoxy has its liberals too, have you?

Your post #873 is quite accurate, you wouldn't happen to be of any relationship to Alexander the Great would you?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew writes:

I beg to differ. It is simply not an historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church had, up until Vatican II, universally believed in this exclusivity and the damnation of all outside her communion.

Here are a few quotes. The first 3 quotes are from John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic Archbishop in America writing in the 1790's, only 3 long lifetimes after Trent:

"So far from our teaching the impossibility of salvation outside the communion of our Church, no divine, worthy to be called such, teaches it at all"

Speaking of communion and membership in the Church he states:

"They are in the communion of Profession of her faith and participation of her sacraments, through the ministry and government of her lawful pastors"

"The members of the Catholic Church are all those who with a sincere heart seek the true religion and are in unfeigned disposition to embrace the truth wherever they find it. It never whas our doctrinbe that salvation can be obtained only by the former (baptized and communicant members)."

And further, he says:

"The distinction between being a member of the Church, and of the communion of the church, is no modern distinction but a doctrine uniformly taught by ancient as well as later divines."

Quoting Bellarmine:

"What is said of none being saved outside the church, must be understood of those who belong to it neither in fact or in desire"

And lastly, quoting Bergier:

"It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine relating to sects outside the bosom of the Church. With respect to heretics we are persuaded that all those who with sincerity remain in ther errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation...are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine."

It seems to me that all this hubub about something 'new' being taught at Vatican II, in light of the aforequoted passages is simply bunk. Whether ALL Catholic divines, theologians priests, bishops or cardinals, or even the popes believed this way,I cannot prove. Never the less, finding these quotes spoken loudly and published widely (they were printed in an article by Carrol which is considered to be the first piece of Catholic journalism in the Americas)we find NO censor or any trace of rebuttal or even a negative word about his position; which can only mean that either all the rest of the Church turned a blind eye or that such was a common teaching in the 18th century church.

Jason B

Regarding Unam Sanctam, see:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm

I am not a theologian and I have no clue about the qualifications of the author of the quoted website. Nevertheless, it seems to explain the origins of Unam Sanctam and place it in the context of other Papal Encyclicals. The Church is the Way to salvation, but that does not mean that all those outside it are necessarily sent to eternal damnation.


Sorry for all the quotes in this long post.

In my studies of the Church of Rome and her communion, I must also agree that invincible ignorance is nothing new to her. Her fraternal statements towards other Christians and even to non-Christians comes from a long Tradition - and not only in the West, but also in the East! In fact, Scripture supports the very notion of invincible ignorance. In one place (I do not recall the chapter and verse), Jesus even says to the Pharisees that it is BECAUSE they say "we see" that they are thereby condemned. Jesus did not condemn those who were ignorant, qualified by the term "invincible."

Matthew, I hate it when the Orthodox Church is misrepresented, and I want to follow the Golden Rule, thus do I defend the Catholic Church and say that they have not wavered in their position at all. You wrote that the Catholic Church has strayed from Orthodoxy and Patristic reliance, yet I can offer you many patristic (East and West)and biblical quotes that support invincible ignorance. Even Unam Sanctam is mitigated by invincible ignorance, once you realize that the decree was very heavingly influenced by Thomas Aquinas who himself espoused invincible ignorance, and written by the most eminent canon lawyer of the time. Is it possible that a man with such a qualification could write Unam Sanctam WITHOUT invincible ignorance in mind? I would err on the side of mercy and love
(if I do err in my conclusion) and say, "no."

I think it is a gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Church to say she was strictly "no salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church" at one point, and then did a 180 degree at Vatican II.

Matthew, I also think your quote from Lumen Gentium should be understood properly. Catholics are not universalists, nor are they Pelagians. The quote you gave certainly makes it appear that the Catholic Church espouses a principle that anyone can be saved no matter what they believe. Reading Lumen Gentium in context, however, notice that Vatican II (as well as Dominus Iesus) gives several qualifications to the quote you gave: 1) these non-Christians must be invincibly ignorant; 2) God's grace is the source of any salvation even for these men; 3) those few elements of beliefs that have salvific quality MUST be aligned with the Catholic faith; in other words, it is not simply sincerity in one's faith by which one can gain entrance into heaven. No matter how sincere, a man who practices a religion that allows for human sacrifice, for instance, will NOT be saved; 4) the fact that Christ died for ALL men, not just those who explicitly believe in Him.

Well, that is my two cents.

Theotokos, pray for our unity.

Humbly,
Marduk

Well said Marduk! I agree with every word.

Jason

Dear Jason, Latin visitor & Marduk,

I write with some reluctance and I don�t want to be guilty of any gross misrepresentations and am familiar with invincible ignorance and it wide potential application, so let me try to be a bit more clear from my perspective.

When the writings of the early Orthodox Fathers Eastern and Western are commingled with some of the newer developments and understandings of more a modern era in the Roman Catholic Church some misunderstandings might happen. Suffice it to say, in the early Church Rome was considered Orthodox via her Orthodoxy.

The subject matter is quite vast, and I haven't read everything in the multiple languages in which it is written and the nuances of the development of language in the context of history, so my understanding may be limited.

Having said that and wishing no ill will or damnation towards anyone and sharing in your goodwill towards all men, I would simply like to mention that the aforementioned;

Papal Bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV, was indeed stated to be infallible in the setting of Roman Catholic Council. As I understand it, a historical fact of the 17th Council of Florence issued the dogma of no salvation for anyone outside the Church as infallible. Infallible statements are to be taken quite seriously by Roman Catholics and sometimes out of concern among the Orthodox Churches irrespective of the historical settings in which the are made, for they would supercede such limitations.

As such I call to your attention and question Jason�s quote "I beg to differ. It is simply not an historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church had, up until Vatican II, universally believed in this exclusivity and the damnation of all outside her communion."

Furthermore Marduk�s quote �I think it is a gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Church to say she was strictly "no salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church" at one point, and then did a 180 degree at Vatican II.� is addressed with regard to the no salvation outside the visible boundraries of the Catholic Church via the point in time when Pope Eugene IV Papal Bull Cantate Domino and proclaimed infallible in Council. If it is a gross misrepresentation on my part to conclude that a statement proclaimed infallible by a Pope and backed by a Council is to be universally accepted by Roman Catholics then why proclaim it? Hence, I would be among the ignorant, and I should remain silent. For as I think Mark Twain said if my memory serves me correctly, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Vatican 2 clarified the doctrine of infallibility with the following words "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ�s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter�s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

I know that there are many Orthodox theologians that have studied these matters with dismay for there are some contradictions.

If anyone can put forth some sort of a notice of nullification from the Vatican of the proclaimed infallible in Council Papal Bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV, I would be grateful.

I have asked this before and reiterate, can an infallible statement made by a Pope or by council be rendered wrong or retracted?

It seems that the newest reasoning is that many of us are in communion with Rome and the see of Peter in a way unknown to us. I have seen notion that raise a few eyebrows.

I might add that I have spoken to several Orthodox Hierarchs on this matter. An Orthodox Chancellor had assured me just a few weeks ago that he would mention it to the local Cardinal with concern and convey his commentary.

I sincerely pray that the Grace of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and his boundless love for mankind saves us all. Suffice it to say the love and mercy of God is greater than our collective ignorance and misunderstandings.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew,

I don't understand your preoccupation with the infallibility of Unam Sanctam or the decree of the councel of Florence. The mere fact of infallibility demonstrates your interpretation of the documents not at all.

It seems that you are taking for granted that the documents in question most certainly teach the exclusion from salvation of all not in communion with the Roman Church. And, rather than addressing the real issue you simply are insisting that the documents do mean what you say they mean and that it is up to the rest of us to demonstrate when the document has been officially modified or rescended. None of us are making such a claim.

Since the notion of invincible ignorance was generally accepted and approved by some of the most notable saints and doctors, from whom the very langage of Unam Sanctam is drawn, the burdern of proof lies on your sholders to demonstrate why invincible ignorance is NOT presumed in these documents. Until it can be proven otherwise, it seems to me that we must assume that they DO presume invincible ignorance and interpret them accordingly.

Jason

Dear francis...

Most people are not familiar at all with the Church�s doctrine of Providence and conscience or they marginalize it. But then again - most Christians are not saints - so what the majority believes is not nessesarily well or correct.

For the most part the church assumes that we already know these basis items. Without a good understanding of Providence (what it is and what it does) it is like watching a play and leaving for the lobby any time the main character comes on stage. All doctrines of the Church assume the context of Providence (the Will of God) and conscience.

Although the Catholic catechism has sections on Providence and conscience - these sections are not comprehensive - they are not meant to teach fully about Providence or about conscience. I will quote only a few lines from the �In Brief� items.

[1779] �Conscience is man�s most secret core, and his sanctuary [where he meets and worships God]. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in its depths.�

[1800] �A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.�

And�

[321] �Divine providence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with [his] wisdom and love - to their ultimate end.�

[323] �Divine providence also works through the action of creatures. To human beings God grants the ability to cooperate freely with his plans.�

Comments�.

The primary way in which we know the Will of God is through conscience. It is the private sanctuary (the place where we meet God and listen to him). All other formas are secondary. All humans have the ability of conscience - no matter race, creed, etc� �I will write my words within their hearts with my own finger.� meaning that for the Christian the written Law is superceded by the law revealed to us within our conscience - by God himself. It is a comparison between the written law and God speaking within our conscience.

It seems unequivocal �A humans must always obey the certain judgments of conscience.� We have free will of course so we can chose not to obey the judgments of conscience - but the guidance of the Church is that we MUST always obey the certain judgments of conscience. There it is - TOP priority and superceding all else.

In a world believed to run by the laws of science which are the logical extension of Darwin�s and Newton�s theories (a mechanical world where scientific law is equal to or surpasses God) - it would be nuts to say �all humans must obey what their conscience presents to them as certain truth� because if conscience were wrong about something - that something can set into action and inevitable chain of events of mighty destruction. But that is a world devoid of Providence.

So how is it that the world DOES run� the answer is... Providence.

Generally - we see providence as isolated events within the mechanical world - but that is only partly what Providence is. These moments are only when WE recognized that Providence has done something. The fact is that Providence is always acting, every where, at all times.

Providence is the Will of God in action within the world. At every moment it is the primary cause of all things and all events. Daily. It is that about which Jesus said �Thy Will be done� and Mary said �Be it done to me according to the word-will.�

Anyone who does not understand the church teachings on Providence and the primacy of conscience - will miss the target and wander around within the maze of church documents and such either constructing their own interpretations or joining one or more of the several factions of interpretations.

Most of the time the common Christian recognize Providence in two limited ways a) special moments when God interrupts the normal course of events b) a hidden plan in action within human history which we know a little something about. These two definitions are somewhat right in a certain context - but they do not comprise the total and proper definition of Providence as that "Will of God" that Jesus himself accomplished daily and that he direct us to also accomplish daily.

The Church does not take the place of the Will of God - it aids us to accomplish it daily. All doctrines of the church and her sacraments are aides to help us accomplish that daily will (our daily bread) and are not meant to do it for us or replace our own responsibilities.

Here are two excellent books�
http://www.thegenesisletters.com/Providence.htm
And there are certainly more.
Conformity to the Will of God.
Divine Abandonment.
Etc�

And for most of the Doctors of the Church it is their main subject.

-ray

Dear RayK,

Thank you for your tremendously thoughtful response to my post!

I've been in awe of your posts before, especially on the scriptures.

But this one was like looking into your soul of souls and discovering the amazing individual you truly are.

I sincerely hope your friends and family know how lucky they are to have you amongst themselves.

I sincerely do, Friend . . .

And so are we here.

Alex

Dear Matthew,

As for Alexander the Great, I'm only related in an allegorical way . . .

There is but one ingredient missing from your analysis of RC teachings - something that you cannot help but miss as your are Orthodox - and that is the "development of doctrine" that is sometimes held in disdain by some Orthodox.

It is a difficult concept to understand, but it is important nevertheless.

It is not a question of whether Unam Sanctam has been nullified or not.

The fact is that "development of doctrine" doesn't stop with Unam Sanctam.

That may seem to be "relativistic" to Orthodox (I believe it was our old friend and great poster, Brendan the Theologian, as I (rightly) named him, who first used this term in conjunction with Catholic teaching), but I don't believe it is.

So pointing to this or that text in history to show how it contradicts what is said now and then coming to the conclusion that RC's don't know which foot to stand on - that is one way of looking at it.

But it doesn't do justice to the rather ingenious system of thought that is Roman Catholic theology.

We may disagree with it, but to say it doesn't have an inner logic of its own is simply not the case.

And I know you aren't anti-Catholic in the least!

Alex

Doesn't the issue of who is in and who is out create something of a dillemma for both the Catholic and Orthodox?

The offical Catholic position is that the Orthodox are not in perfect union with Rome, and this imperfect union leaves them lacking. In all other respects, She recocognizes the Orthodox apostolic succession, sacrements, and legitamacy. Such admission recognized the Orthodox as true sui generis churches.

If the Orthodox are lacking because they are not in union with Rome, then isn't Rome lacking because if the breach with the East? In other words, how can Rome be whole without union with churches recognized to have all of the other marks of a true sui generis church?

Both sides must accept as absolute truth that the Church of Christ (whether you see such church as Catholic or Orthodox)cannot fail. If both churches cannot be truly whole without the presence of the other, doesn't that demand the conclusion that there is no valid separation? Is its possible that what we have is an apparent separation that exists only in the arrogance of both sides, but without actual reality in the Heart of Christ?

Just a thought.

Dear Makar,

You are indeed correct!

But both sides are truly serious about the other being "in lack of."

The RC Church understands this as an "imperfect" incorporation into the Church of Christ.

The Orthodox see it as as "communion" and outside of the communion of the Orthodox Churches, there is no true Church.

Even though EC's here tend to equate the "True Church" as the RC and Orthodox Churches, (the former is 100% and the latter is 'almost 100%) this is, to use the Administrator's terminology, rejected by Orthodoxy.

And even if RCism were to agree with Orthodoxy on every single point separating them from each other, until "Communion" is reestablished by a sacramental/ecclesial act of reconciliation - there is no unity.

This is also why the Orthodox regard us as "relativists."

Alex

Exactly true. Not only possible but it is a fact that has everything to do with Providence and nothing to do with human opinions.

If two brothers (born of the same parents) fight and one or both say "You are not my brother!" does that make it true? Of course not.

That which comprises the fabric of the church is still whole in both. Man's free will, while it may seem to have something to do with that - does not have any say about it. God guaranteed that to us. "Although the gates of hell... etc." which is the old way of saying "Yet hell itself war upon the church... The church shall not fall." What preserves the church is the Providence of God - and so it is just not possible within creation that the fabric of the church be rent - no more possible than it is for a cow to give birth to a human being.. The event is just not something that God is going to create into existence.

After 2000 years - it is still here and any division is of the fallible human kind.

The Orthodox church, while saying it does not agree with the see of Peter - has never ever violated the office of Peter. Such a violation would have to consist of claiming ecumenical statues of a council not sealed by Peter. I do not believe such a thing has very been done. Nor has the Orthodox church adopted or held anything not approved by the office of Peter. I am talking about �revealed faith� (that which we must believe) and not about the many human aspects of the church which an not infallible.

-ray

I would tend to think of that �in lack of� as a thing of fallible human nature - where free will is allowed and not over-ridden by acts of Providence. And therefore accidental (secondary) to the church and not essential (must exist).

I recognize a real and existing union of the Orthodox churches with the Office of the primacy of Peter - in two ways.

A) never having claimed an ecumenical council without - the office of Peter.
B) remaining true to what had been approved by the office of Peter (up to the last ecumenical Council that Orthodoxy adheres to) and by adopting nothing further (as infallible) outside of what had been approved by the Office of Peter at the time of these councils.

And so the Orthodox church remains true to the - revealed faith - as originally formed.

As you say - it does not recognized any further developments in the understanding of the revelation of faith. But I am not sure that is a requirement. The key thought here is that it accepts what had been defined - and what has been defined further is not anything new - just a new way to say it.

In other words the substance of the Church had been put to bed within the Councils that were approved by Peter - and accepted by the Orthodox Churches.

Even although some of the Orthodox churches or all of the Orthodox church has expressed the opinion that it does not agree with the way in which it understands the RC doctrines of the infallibility of Peter and the IC of Mary are stated by the RC� it has never declared in any infallible way that either RC item is - in error. The Orthodox church would (even in their own view) have to convene an ecumenical council to do that.

Without an ecumenical council - any opinion of the Orthodox church on the matters that s the opinion (not infallible) of the Orthodox members - and not a - fact.

Anyways - these are my random thoughts which I have not fully confirmed to myself. I am not stating a firm position.

-ray

Ray,

I have read both "Conformity to the Will of God" and "Divine Abandonment" and found them both very spiritually uplifting. I also have no intention of minimizing the importance of Divine Providence in the world and in each believer's life.

However (you knew there had to be a "however"), I think this concept has been mostly abused and misunderstood today. It seems to me that you set up a false dichotomy between divine providence and Church doctrines/sacraments. They are not against each other - one (doctrines/sacraments) helps us to follow the other (Providence), which you say, but seem to minimize in importance (at least it seems that way to me).

The danger of emphasizing Providence over and above doctrine is that one can just claim to follow Providence (and really believe it in their heart) and be completely off the path to holiness and salvation. By following a false religion (which I would say everything other than Catholicism and Orthodoxy are), one can be led farther and farther away from a true and healthy relationship with God.

The truth is that Divine Providence calls every person to a sacramental life in the Church. Due to our fallen state, many are not able to hear this call through no fault of their own. But as those who have been given the ability to hear this call (although we have done nothing to deserve it), we must proclaim the necessity of this sacramental life to every person on the face of the earth.

We know with certainty that Christ will save those in sacramental communion with the Church. We hope, but do not know with certainity, that He will save those outside her visible communion. I would rather err on the side of certain knowledge than a hope when the issue of salvation of a person is being considered.

Dear Jason,


Your identification of my alleged preoccupation is predictably incorrect and your understanding of it is singularly limited by your endeavor with limited access to my considerations. It seems sensible to me that since I'm not the author of your references, Unam Sanctam & the decree of the council of Florence even Augustine might argue there is no burden of proof on my shoulders. They seemed relative to the discussion, hence their introduction. I will yield Ray K's judgment regarding their relevance.

In retrospect, even the learned Alex and Anthony Dragani have been intellectually honest enough to understand and admit that history has shown that the concept of no salvation outside of the church was a motivating factor in many of Rome's actions. Relevant to this forum and the discussion at hand, it was a well known element in the establishment and implementation of the unia. As such it was received and is still understood as a great insult and the unia's advancement was and is opposed. I use the word unia here understanding some of the correct implications.

Be at peace with me, I'm not your enemy.

Dear Alex,

Ante- \An"te-\ ([a^]n"t[-e]-). A Latin preposition and prefix; akin to Gr. 'anti`, Skr. anti, Goth. and-, anda- (only in comp.), AS. and-, ond-, (only in comp.: cf. Answer, Along), G. ant-, ent- (in comp.). The Latin ante is generally used in the sense of before, in regard to position, order, or time, and the Gr. 'anti` in that of opposite, or in the place of.

Actually I'm somewhat aware of the western development of theology. In a simple and effective way because it requires a small and easy movement into the heart facilitated by the presence of children in the subject matter, we have seen in the Communion for children of BC in RC churches discussion a simple and profound example of the ramifications that Latin Catholic parents can vicariously understand relative to the development of the"age of reason".

Addressing on our parallel thread author and agreed by me as "tremendously thoughtful" RayK, who has been hot on the trail in the past, I submit the words of Saint Hesychios the Priest who has written:

(It is written: 'Not everyone who says to Me: "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father' (Matthew 7:21). The will of the Father is indicated in the words: 'You who love the Lord, hate evil' (ps. 97:10) Hence we should both pray the Prayer of Jesus Christ and hate our evil thoughts. In this way we do God's will.)

Trusting in God's great Love and Mercy for us all,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear francis...

It can be a hard thing to understand so I am not saying that you have fault here. �Providence� must be understood first in a philosophical and theological sense. A spiritual (of the mind) sense.

Follow this logic.

(Under the heading of Providence in the CCC�)

[308] �The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: �

Q: What do we call it when God acts (operates) as first cause in and through creatures?
A: We call it Providence.

God acting = Providence.
Providence = God acting.

God (Providence) is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes.
Providence (God) is the first cause which operates in and through secondary causes.

God IS Providence.
Providence IS God.

We tend to habitually think of God as a �thing� (which can be at rest and not be acting). But that is not correct. God IS the ACT of God. He is his own act. Just as existence is not a thing but an act.

Existence is the - act - of existing. It is not a thing - but an act.

The name he gave to Moses was �I AM� which is the sort English translation for words which mean �I am what I shall become� - not to be understood in a final way but to be understood as the act of existing itself - always in action - always be-coming. Not a thing - but an act. Always in the act of be-coming.

Providence is not just an uplifting devotion - it is a fact - it is reality - in fact it is the only reality that really exists. We can rightly call Providence - reality itself. We just do not generally think of reality as being a person.

Providence IS the Resurrected Jesus Christ (John 1:1). The Logos (in Greek) and the Word (in Old Testament language). �and the Word (Logos) - was - God.� John identifies the Resurrected Jesus Christ as the same �thing� as Providence (�through him all things come to-be�).

You are very right - some people can imagine that they are following Providence and they are really not and they are under misunderstandings. And this is tied to the next thing�

>I think this concept has been mostly abused and misunderstood today.
Yes.. Absolutely true. It has been regulated to something much smaller than it should be and hardly any clergy speaks about it or teaches it - so the result is that the faithful really do not know much about it at all. This leaves the door wide open for abuse and being mislead - certain �personality cults� abuse it and set it against the church. I am not one of those.

My understanding of Providence is Thomist and Suma Theologica.

In that light it is impossible for there to be a contradiction between Providence - and - Church doctrines and sacraments. Because the doctrines and sacraments flow directly from Providence. The doctrines of the church - reflect - reality. In the case of the sacerements that ARE the reality. The only possibility that there be a dichotomy between them is if person misunderstand either one or the other.

In Eastern theology Providence is spoken of by the concept of God�s �uncreated energies�.

But as I say, proper teaching regarding Providence has gone the way of the three stages of the spirutal life, real contemplative prayer, St John of the Cross - and so many spritual masters of the East and West. Almoost forgotten or terribly misunderstood. Sadly - clergy has 'moved out' and fanatics have moved 'in'.

As to the question of - if God has or is calling every human person to the Catholic church - I will leave that for another time. One must make a diffrence between the church triumphant and the church militant. Not making that diffrence has cause much trouble regarding some doctrines.

-ray

A good priest once put it to me this way...

The Catholic church has been assigned to spread the gospel. That is our job. But from that we should not automatically assume that He is calling everyone to be a Catholic - he really has not told us that and - if he has not told us that then it is none of our business. He does not tell us everything that is on his mind. All we know is that we Catholics are to preach the gospel in words and deeds - period. Will any non-Catholics be saved? Well we know some will - he has told us that. Will all Catholics be saved - well we know not all Catholics will be saved - he has told us that too. All the rest is his business - and not ours. We just do what we are told to do. Even Catholics have free will - and can reject God. So just do what he told you to do and leave the rest to him.

-ray

Dear Ray,

I'm reminded of the words of St. Serafim

"Save yourself and thousands around you will be saved."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

Ok. *sigh* how DO I get myself in these situations? All right, without being argumenative I would like to ask the following: since the statement in question (in Unam Sanctam) is a quote from Aquinas, why should we not also import along with it St Thomas's teaching on invincible ignorance? Here are a few quotes I got from this website: St Thomas [ic.net]

a) "Unbelief by way of pure negation" (infidelitas secundum negationem puram) in case a man may "be called an unbeliever merely because he has not the faith" "in those who have heard nothing about the faith"; this Unbelief is not a sin -and

b) "Unbelief by way of opposition to the faith" (infidelitas secundum contrarietatem ad fidem) when "a man refuses to hear the faith" (S.Th II II, 10,1 c); this Unbelief is a sin.

The fact that "unbelief by way of pure negation" is not a sin, is not only a Thomist concept, but it's also a verity of faith: St. Pius V condemned the proposition Infidelitas pure negativa in his quibus Christus non est predicatus peccatum est (D +1068) (=Purely negative unbelief, in those whom Christ was not preached to, is a sin).

In fact St. Thomas teaches that "Nobody would believe if he doesn't see he must believe" (non enim crederet nisi videret ea esse credenda - S.Th., II II, q. 1, a. 4 ad 2).

The prayer of Cornelius was a false worship, but it has been made a good prayer by faith; an implicit faith:

S Th. II II q. 10 a. 4 ad 3 (in some editions ad 4)

With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.

Now I am not claiming to be as learned as other members of this board, as I am certain is true, so naturally your breadth of knowledge is going to be greater than mine. That said I ask the following:

It seems to me that if there are questionable quotes, particularly those which claim infallibility, then it is up to the Magisterium to synchronize current teaching with the apparently contradictory statement. In the illustration I give above I think there is a real possibility of interpreting Unam Sanctam in a manner consistent with contemporary teaching without doing violence to the text.

I am sorry for my tone Matthew in my previous post. I do that sometimes and I will try to do better.

Yours

Jason B.

Dear Jason,

I suppose any violence of importation is a question of compatibility with the text since invincible ignorance could be construed as circumstantial and could move the matter quickly into the realm of predestination. It seems to me with that reasoning anything can be imported into anything with even a thread of compatibility or even an opposite position and alter the text accordingly. Violence to the text could be minimized with words as well. I suppose that you could then adjust any statement by adding or subtracting to it to validate a current position through a developmental mindset. You could then develop a notion into infinity with many understandable and not so understandable vacillations. The problem is it would never stop and then there is no finality even with the final statements proclaimed by men. Hence there would ultimately be a violation of conscience. Not good. Is truth subject to our understanding of it? Create whatever you want within a statement for as long as a mind can think from one generation to the next. But we know from scripture that there will be a final judgment.

Don't worry about getting yourself in these situations just avoid them for I must say I'm not comfortable engaging in a debate on the matter for it has been about 25 years since I read Aquinas, and I don't think it would matter anyway, we could just keep going back and forth. As you can see I could fall for that easily. You develop it this way I develop it that way even while trying to be truthful I hope. Anything can be argued or manipulated by the minds of men as they try to create a perception of truth from words or actually discern the truth in a situation depending on thier dispositions, but the truth matters and so do our words. So perhaps it is best for us and others if we terminate the discussion. I will await your response, perhaps you will remain silent and ponder the matter and send me a private email sometime in the future.

These message boards are becoming quite a temptation for me again, pride is a big one for me, as such I have quite a bit of work to do and am trying to heed the advise of St. Serafim

"Save yourself and thousands around you will be saved."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin