Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, Elizabeth Mahlou, my fellow blogger from Blest Atheist, asked me one of those “big questions” which necessitate its own blog post. Here is the question:
I am a Catholic who upon occasion attends Orthodox services because of my frequent travels in Eastern European countries. The differences in the masses are obvious, but I wonder what the differences in the theology are. I don't see much. Is that something that you can elucidate?
I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.
Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:
1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.I think this will do it for now. I invite my Orthodox Christian brethren to agree, disagree, or add your own. Without a doubt, - I am speaking as a Catholic again - what we have in common with the Orthodox Church is immense, but what keeps us apart is important, challenging, and not to be underestimated.
2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.
5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.
6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.
7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.
8. Since no “forensic guilt” is transmitted genetically through “Original Sin,” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother is considered superfluous. She had no need for such an exception because there was nothing to exempt her from in the first place. Of course, Mary is Theotokos (“God-bearer”), Panagia (“All-Holy”) and proclaimed in every Liturgy as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,” but her sanctification is spoken about more in terms of a special, unique, total, and gratuitous bestowing and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit in her, without the need of “applying the merits of the atonement” of Christ to her at the moment of conception, in order to remove a non-existent forensic guilt from her soul, as the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have it. If pressed, Orthodox authorities would point at the Annunciation as the “moment” in which this utter experience of redemption and sanctification took place in the life of the Blessed Theotokos. Although the Orthodox believe in her Assumption, they deny that any individual hierarch has any power to singly and unilaterally define it as a dogma binding on the whole Church, and that only Councils would have such power if and when they were to proclaim it and its proclamations received as such by the entire Church.
9. Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.
10. Since the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is overwhelmingly important and indispensable as the vehicle for True Christian Worship – one of the possible translations of “orthodoxy” is “True Worship – and as a teaching vehicle – since another possible translation of “orthodoxy” is “True Teaching” – all the ecclesiastical arts are aimed at sustaining the worthy celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Iconography in the Eastern Church is a mode of worship and a window into heaven; the canons governing this art are strict and quite unchanging and the use of two-dimensional iconography in temples and chapels is mandatory and often profuse. For them, church architecture exists to serve the Liturgy: you will not find in the East “modernistic” temples resembling auditoriums. Same thing applies to music which is either plain chant, or is organically derived from the tones found in plain chant. This allows for “national expressions” of church music that nevertheless do not stray too far away from the set conventions. Organ music exists but is rare; forget guitars or any other instrument for that matter. Choral arrangements are common in Russia – except in the Old Calendarist churches – the Orthodox counterparts to Catholic “traditionalists.”
11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act. Opinion in this instance is divided and the issue for them still open and susceptible to a final dogmatic definition in the future, if one is ever needed.
12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.
Thank you Elizabeth for motivating me to write these, and may the Lord continue to bless you richly.
***Then this illegitimate spawn of evil knows the Catholic Church’s teachings a whole lot better than you. ***
Goody. Then let us look at things a little more closely.
*** We believe, based upon certain criteria that we can state some of those who are eternally saved (ie the Saints in Heaven), but there is no Catholic belief that leads one to believe that somebody in particular is going to hell.***
Notice: somebody in particular. We understand that there are conditions which condemn a man but we have no particular knowledge of or the ability to condemn a man.
Formal excommunication involves the following: While “minor excommunication” could be incurred by associating with an excommunicate, and “major excommunication” could be imposed by any bishop, “anathema” was imposed by the Pope in a specific ceremony described in the Pontificale Romanum. Wearing a purple cope (the liturgical color of penitence) and holding a lighted candle, he, surrounded by twelve priests, also with lighted candles, pronounced the anathema with a formula that concluded with the words:
Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive (Name) himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.
The priests respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat” (Let it be done), and all, including the pontiff, cast their lighted candles on the ground. Notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been thus excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church.
Notice that the Church still calls on the man to repent of his sins and rejoin the Christian brotherhood. The Church does not condemn a man.
Now to: ***Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
The Catholic Church teaches that one is saved only through the Catholic Church, and that if you do not stay in the Catholic Church, you cannot be saved. ***
Notice here that the wording is that one is saved through Christ who Body is the Church and those who know that and still reject it and do not repent before coming before Him are believed to be damned. We do not know one man who fits this: we may think or hope that men who are evil in life may be condemned, but neither the Church nor any man knows.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: Still the anathema maranatha is a censure from which the criminal may be absolved; although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, the Church, in virtue of the Power of the Keys, can receive him once more into the communion of the faithful. More than that, it is with this purpose in view that she takes such rigorous measures against him, in order that by the mortification of his body his soul may be saved on the last day. The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.
In other words, we must do what we can to bring all men to God, but it is God that does the Judging.
Let us now go to the following paragraphs:
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
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.337
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338
The question might be: is the self labelled Christian ignorant of the Gospel? I know many loudly Christian individuals (and that includes many Catholics) that are ignorant of very Gospel that they claim to know. Many are like the eunuch before meeting Timothy.
Regarding point 841, there are some theologists that give support to the idea that Islam is a Christian heresy and that since they claim to worship the God of Abraham, they are linked to us however imperfectly.
***Is it a heresy to deny the mariology taught by the Catholics? If the answer is yes, then your own teachings - the Catechism - state that the Orthodox and Protestants are not saved, because we knowingly reject that teaching, and thus are heretics, not allowed to be part of the Church, and thus not saved.
Put the pretty words you want, but your own Catechism is quite explicit; those who do not give heed to the Catholic Church are summarily cut off from salvation - condemned to hell.***
As I have shown, the Church condemns nobody to hell and that genuine heresy must occur in those who know the Gospel of Christ.
***What is being taught today in both sides of the Church is that it is a choice which God acknowledges. I wouldn’t even call it a “condemnation,” because it is, after all, a choice of the “condemned.” This is what they did, knowingly and willingly.
In other words, if you see signs along the highway that say “This way to heaven” and a traffic cop pointing in that direction and you ignore them it is hardly a “condemnation” if you miss the exist and end up somewhere else.***
Exactly so; but there are many traffic cops and so many other aids along the way, it’s sometimes difficult not to know the Via of Christ.
***However let’s not forget that, while this may seem fair and reasonable and just to the human mind, this is hardly the biblical view of the final decision.
The Church also vehemently teaches that it is God who saves, not us, that salvation cannot be earned or worked for. Yet this is not fully consistent either because salvation, as taught by the Church, is not an ‘act’ of God as much as it is a result of man’s cooperation with God.
Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is seen as freeing man to be able to follow God freely, in other words—to take the right exist, by choice and on his own will, without coercion, being pulled by the ring in his nose, or a divine tractor beam attached to his forehead.***
I believe that the Holy Spirit does come along and nudge and poke and drop things into the individual’s path. I’ve had a number of little coincidental things happen. I don’t believe in repeated coincidence. Many people, though, do not notice these things or willfully ignore them.
***I think Matthew 25 also distinguishes ‘going through the motions’ and genuine intent. In other words, it is not enough to just believe, or volunteer in soup kitchens, or tithe, or receive the Eucharist every Sunday, but whether it is genuine and from the heart and with pure intent, not in order to score another point.***
The pure in heart will see God. It is the imitation of Christ both physically and spiritually that we will be Judged on.
***As I have shown, the Church condemns nobody to hell and that genuine heresy must occur in those who know the Gospel of Christ.***
Correction: heresy can only occur if one already knows the Gospel of Christ and chooses to believe something seriously opposed to it and the Church (the Body of Christ).
841 in its entirety:
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Salvation, according to the Catechism, includes those who acknowledge God, and that is all that is needed to reach Heaven. It does not say that they must accept Jesus or the Church.
Canon 846 explains that whenever one is saved -- and we don't know who is and who isn't -- he is saved as a member of the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.
Assuming this is correct, then all Protestants who have given their lives to Jesus are part of the Catholic Church, correct?
if a Protestant refuses to his last breath to enter it, he cannot be saved,
Oops. Only if the Protestant becomes Catholic apparently. Which contradicts the statement you just made:
Canon 846 explains that whenever one is saved -- and we don't know who is and who isn't
Apparently, if you die a Protestant the Catechism states you are not saved. According to your own words. You must accept the Catholic Church as supreme or you will not be saved.
Again, this is the biggest issue I believe most Protestants have with the Catholic Church: it is now the sole arbiter of who shall be saved and who is condemned, by virtue of controlling who is a Catholic. And most Catholics refuse to honestly admit this position, trying to shade it in ecumenical terms.
Fundamentally, non-Catholic believers in Jesus are not saved; believers in God but not Jesus (even if taught and aware of Jesus and the Bible) are saved. And the Pope and Church Heirarchy have become the gatekeepers to salvation and Heaven.
Notice that the Church still calls on the man to repent of his sins and rejoin the Christian brotherhood. The Church does not condemn a man.
Which you used to "clarify" your quote of the anathema:
we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate
So the Pope and his 12 priests gather together with candles and robes of color, and chant and CONDEMN TO ETERNAL FIRE WITH SATAN those who are considered seriously ex-communicated.
If that is not the Church directly and openly condemning a man to Hell, then what the hell is? Did you not read the words which you quoted?
And you never addressed 846. It is extremely explicit:
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
Are you willing to state categorically that you believe a non-Catholic Protestant can and be fully saved and enter into Heaven? Knowing full well that Protestants are considered heretics by the Catholic Church?
A simple yes or no is all that's needed. Sophistry to shade your answer or deflect isn't beneficial to the conversation.
Thought you guys might appreciate a ping to update...
then all Protestants who have given their lives to Jesus are part of the Catholic Church, correct?
No, not correct. If someone gives his life to Jesus, he would probably be a brother in a Catholic monastery or a priest. He certainly would not be busy protesting His Church.
You must accept the Catholic Church as supreme or you will not be saved.
As One Holy Catholic and Apostolic, as per the Nicene Creed. Correct, that is necessary for salvation. However, that does not contradict that we don't know who is not saved (*), because we don't know if they enter the Catholic Church at the hour of their death, if not sooner. It is our most fervent prayer that they all do: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us (me and you) sinners now and at the hour of our death"; "O Lord Jesus, save us (me and you) from the fires of Hell, bring all souls to heaven, especially those (you) who is in most need of Thy mercy".
controlling who is a Catholic
The Church controls who is visibly Catholic, that is, who is visibly partaking of her sacraments. The Chruch does not and cannot control who is internally Catholic, that is, has a desire to be Catholic but is prevented from it by some circumstances.
And most Catholics refuse to honestly admit this position, trying to shade it in ecumenical terms
Most Catholics are themselves confused by the false ecumenism that infected the Church following the Second Vatican Council. But you must agree that it is not an easy to grasp doctrine even if it were taught properly. I don't think very many Catholics are trying to deceive you on purpose. I sure don't.
----
(*) We do know that the canonized saints are saved, but we don't know who is saved outrside of that small circle of people, and who is not saved we never know for sure. We don't have a list of reprobates in the same sense as we have a list of canonized saints.
Thanks. It is a good thread.
Does 841 - in context and in whole - not state that Muslims will be in Heaven with you, because they are followers of God?
As One Holy Catholic and Apostolic, as per the Nicene Creed.
Catholic meaning universal Church, not that headed by the Pope in Rome? Meaning Protestants and Orthodox would be part of that same Church?
But you must agree that it is not an easy to grasp doctrine even if it were taught properly.
It is confusing because it is a dogma of man, not of God. It really is simple: if you really claim that only Jesus can offer salvation and know a man's heart, then state as much. Open up the Communion to all who wish to partake. It is between the man and Jesus, not the Church and man.
My own denomination - Free Methodist - practices open communion. Anyone who wishes can partake. It is not our role or ability to control who can participate in the sacrament. It is between God and the person.
Additionally, we do not condemn a man to the fires of Hell (which MarkBsnr clearly showed is one of the rites of the Catholic Church); if someone is causing strife or acting in what we believe is direct contradiction to the teachings of the Bible and refuses to repent, we ask him to leave the Church, but do not "yank his Heaven pass" like ex-communication.
He's asked to go worship elsewhere for the betterment of the local congregation and for his own spiritual health. But we do not state he is lost; that is for God and God alone.
But then, if this policy of open communion and "we do not decide who is and isn't saved" was truly followed, then the control is no longer left in Rome, so surely the early Church could not allow that! So the Catechism was created to dictate and maintain control over the masses.
And over time, as the Church became the accepted "gate to Heaven", and the dogma of infallibility was strengthened, the Church finds itself having to defend the indefensible, so twisting itself to let in Christian-slaying Mohammed but denying Christ-loving Arne.
The need for control by the early and middle aged Catholic Church became the justification for restriction, even if not Biblical, even if confusing and misleading to those truly seeking Christ. Men used the Church for their own betterment, and the Church never corrected for that.
I don't think very many Catholics are trying to deceive you on purpose. I sure don't.
You are most assuredly correct; however, the teachings of the Catholic Church, and its placing itself as the arbiter of salvation (one that is infallible at that) is the font of all misunderstanding related to salvation.
If the rank-and-file Catholics are confused, there is no other place to lay blame but at the foot of Rome. The problem is how do you correct clearly non-Biblical teachings when those teachings have been deemed inerrant?
The Church's desire to be inerrant and infallible is its own greatest stumbling block; they are the twin sins of pride and jealousy. Pride because it cannot admit its own mistakes (take for example the continued refusal to outright admit the sins of the past) and inherent fallibility, and jealousy because it seeks to be the object of worship and salvation rather than God.
We held a rally outside Rep Gabby Giffords (AZ-8) office a while ago, protesting her refusal to meet with any constituents concerning the health care bill. I think the negative publicity forced her to hold, finally, a couple of townhalls. I’ll leave in a few minutes to try to get in.
Since time is limited, let me just say that I suspect I have significant disagreements with the Orthodox Church, but A) they are fewer in number, since the Orthodox aren’t big on Purgatory and Indulgences, and B) they are less emotional, because they don’t carry the baggage of a history that includes their burning us at the stake, or vice-versa. Although as a Baptist, those who came before me were much more likely to be burned, than to burn others.
In most of my discussions with them, Romans 14 has been an acceptable approach:
“5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.”
It does not say that all Muslims will be. Some will be, perhaps, but it does not say that it is enough to be a follower of God in the Muslim sense and get to Heaven.
The only assured way to Heaven is sincere belief in Jesus as taught by the Catholic Church, which includes good works, baptism, a good confession as necessary, attendance at Mass and frequent Holy Communion. Without it, people ask for an extraordinary miracle (the Mass is an ordinary miracle) if they want to be saved.
Catholic meaning universal Church, not that headed by the Pope in Rome? Meaning Protestants and Orthodox would be part of that same Church?
The same chapter of the Catechism explains what it means. The Church or Rome is in an imperfect, but close union with the Orthodox Church, who has valid sacraments. The Protestant communties of faith do not, unfortunately, have such closeness and are not properly even churches. Several dogmas of Protestatism are not compatible with the Catholic Church and therefore one who follows these divergent dogmas cannot count himself as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church headed up by the Pope in Rome. However, let us not forget that religion is what we do, not what we profess. The important thing is to do the works that Christ asks us to do, and often Protestants do more to please Christ than Catholics.
if you really claim that only Jesus can offer salvation and know a man's heart, then state as much. Open up the Communion to all who wish to partake. It is between the man and Jesus, not the Church and man.
The communion is open to all who wish to study the teachings of the Catholic Church and be with Christ. It takes about a year to complete the formal conversion, and for a good reason it can be accelerated. Anyone who wishes to partake of the Holy Communion should not tarry to do so.
Additionally, we do not condemn a man to the fires of Hell (which MarkBsnr clearly showed is one of the rites of the Catholic Church);
But perhaps you should. Giving one over to Satan is clearly biblical (one of the letters to Timothy, I forget which, contains the prooftext). If you really believed what you believe, you would spare no effort to warn against wrong belief, both someone who holds them and those who might listen to him.
If you do some research you would find the Catholic Church is less likely to condemn a protestant or a muslim etc... or any other religion as much as a cafeteria Catholic who knows Church teaching and rejects it.
The Catechism details the "natural law" pretty well. Basically, God has written onto our hearts the Law of Love. Even a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ can "know" this law. If a person loves, He abides in Christ. 1 John makes that statement several times. We know that we can do nothing good without Christ abiding within us. Thus, when a person who has never heard of Christ can listen to that divine natural law printed inside of us - and the Spirit blows where He will. Thus, a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ CAN be saved - because they are not specifically rejecting Him - AND they ARE following His Law of Love - which is the summary of the Commandments, says James. The Catechism refers to the Muslims - Some have not heard the truth of the Gospel, so they cannot reject it. They have been presented a scare crow by their mullahs, so they are considered invincibly ignorant (as the Catechism calls them and other such people). A person will not go to hell if he is invincibly ignorant and loves others.Many Muslims in extreme Muslim area's of the world don't know Jesus Christ and the Gospel. They haven't been presented it. So how can they reject it? They only reject a scare crow, much like anti-Catholic's who don't know Catholicism.
There is only one person by whom men can be saved through: Jesus Christ. And He sends His Spirit to those whom He will. Christ said that NO ONE can do good without ME. NO ONE. Thus, when you see a good Muslim, or a good Hindu, what's the explanation? God's Spirit is working through the natural law written on that person's heart. He is saved through Christ, even though He doesn't know that Jesus rose from the dead.
I hope this help you clear things up in your understanding of Catholicism,dear friend.
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
And how can that be? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me". John 14:6. Jesus is the sole way. If you do not go through Jesus, you WILL not reach Heaven. Simple as that. Muslims - de-facto rejectors of the divinity of Christ - do not accept this.
Is the Catholic Church teaching that sometimes, someone who Christ has explicitly excluded, actually included in Heaven?
The only assured way to Heaven is sincere belief in Jesus as taught by the Catholic Church
Thus only the Church can guarantee your salvation; follow what the Church says, and you'll be OK. You are the gatekeeper. And this statement is in direct contravention of your explanation of 841.
Several dogmas of Protestatism are not compatible with the Catholic Church and therefore one who follows these divergent dogmas cannot count himself as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church headed up by the Pope in Rome.
Thus I am not part of the Church. And as a person outside the Church, I am most likely not saved, for only by being inside the Church am I assured of my salvation.
Go ahead and say it - Protestants aren't saved. It won't hurt my feelings since I rely on Christ and Christ alone for my salvation, not the dictates of a Pope or an institution of man. But I think it will do your own soul good to admit it openly.
The communion is open to all who wish to study the teachings of the Catholic Church and be with Christ.
I study the teachings of all Christian traditions, and I strive to walk with Christ every day (as best as my frailty allows). As an open and avowed Protestant who believes in Jesus' redemptive salvation, and strives to follow His words every day, would I be given communion alongside you, in your Church? I can take the host and the wine?
Giving one over to Satan is clearly biblical (one of the letters to Timothy, I forget which, contains the prooftext). If you really believed what you believe, you would spare no effort to warn against wrong belief, both someone who holds them and those who might listen to him.
1 Timothy 4:1-9 is probably what you are thinking about. We are called to avoid those who give themselves over to what is wicked, but we are not to sit in judgment of them. That is not our role. We should hold each other accountable (1 Tim 5:20), but that is challenging each other to "gut-check" what we are doing against the words and teachings of Christ.
NO MAN, group of men, or institution can determine a man's fate, or condemn him to Hell. That is Biblical. And that is opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.
That may be; I would simply say that any condemnation is non Biblical and equally wrong!
A person will not go to hell if he is invincibly ignorant and loves others.Many Muslims in extreme Muslim area's of the world don't know Jesus Christ and the Gospel. They haven't been presented it. So how can they reject it? They only reject a scare crow, much like anti-Catholic's who don't know Catholicism.
What is the Biblical basis for this? Jesus proclaimed quite explicitly that it was only though faith in Him that a person is saved.
It is good intentions to not want those who have never heard of Christ should not be condemned to Hell, but it is not our decision to be made; it is Christ's. Thus the only thing we can do is evangelize as best we can, to let people hear the Word of God. It is not our position to state one way or another that they are saved or condemned.
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
I hope yours, is too! Mine is still 12 hours away - the day is just getting started here in Suzhou, China. My morning ritual: get up, stretch, a few situps, a few pushups, devotions, check out FR, then breakfast...:)
***There are a lot of pretty words you wrote for the betterment of this evil, illegitimate Christian, but you betray your own writings:
Notice that the Church still calls on the man to repent of his sins and rejoin the Christian brotherhood. The Church does not condemn a man.
Which you used to “clarify” your quote of the anathema:
we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate ***
The ‘judge’ in this case means the belief of the Church, not the exercise of the Judgement of God, and it must be put into context with the next sentences which include the means to salvation including full repentence.
***So the Pope and his 12 priests gather together with candles and robes of color, and chant and CONDEMN TO ETERNAL FIRE WITH SATAN those who are considered seriously ex-communicated.
If that is not the Church directly and openly condemning a man to Hell, then what the hell is? Did you not read the words which you quoted?***
If you would understand the Catechism, you would read it as it was meant to be read, not chase the cherry picked Scriptural phrases of the various and sundry Protestant theologies which litter the landscape like leaves in the fall. Like Scripture, it must be read in context.
***And you never addressed 846. It is extremely explicit:
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.***
Odd, I thought that I spent half my prior post on it.
***Are you willing to state categorically that you believe a non-Catholic Protestant can and be fully saved and enter into Heaven? Knowing full well that Protestants are considered heretics by the Catholic Church?***
I am willing to state categorically that it is possible for the Lord God Almighty to Judge a non Catholic Protestant to salvation. Does this satisfy?
***A simple yes or no is all that’s needed. Sophistry to shade your answer or deflect isn’t beneficial to the conversation.***
It will be simpler to answer yes or no when you address the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ fully and not obliquely or inaccurately.
***Additionally, we do not condemn a man to the fires of Hell (which MarkBsnr clearly showed is one of the rites of the Catholic Church); ***
I did not show anything of the kind; I showed what that wording actually meant. No man has the authority to condemn another; additionally no man has the ability to determine if one is condemned.
Further, it is considered good manners to ping those whom you write negative things about.
***It does not say that all Muslims will be. Some will be, perhaps, but it does not say that it is enough to be a follower of God in the Muslim sense and get to Heaven.
And how can that be? “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me”. John 14:6. Jesus is the sole way. If you do not go through Jesus, you WILL not reach Heaven. Simple as that. Muslims - de-facto rejectors of the divinity of Christ - do not accept this.
Is the Catholic Church teaching that sometimes, someone who Christ has explicitly excluded, actually included in Heaven? ***
Jesus has instructed us that He has other sheep. It may be possible, but we cannot pin any hopes on it. We must follow His commands. We are commanded to bring the Gospel to all; we cannot teach that anyone may be excluded in any sense except if God decides.
***Several dogmas of Protestatism are not compatible with the Catholic Church and therefore one who follows these divergent dogmas cannot count himself as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church headed up by the Pope in Rome.
Thus I am not part of the Church. And as a person outside the Church, I am most likely not saved, for only by being inside the Church am I assured of my salvation.
Go ahead and say it - Protestants aren’t saved. It won’t hurt my feelings since I rely on Christ and Christ alone for my salvation, not the dictates of a Pope or an institution of man. But I think it will do your own soul good to admit it openly.***
Given your repudiation of swathes of the Gospels, I wouldn’t pin anything on supposed reliance on Jesus. We don’t know if individual Protestants are not saved; we cannot. We just know that outwardly, the signs are mostly not in alignment with Scripture and the Church.
***I study the teachings of all Christian traditions, and I strive to walk with Christ every day (as best as my frailty allows). As an open and avowed Protestant who believes in Jesus’ redemptive salvation, and strives to follow His words every day, would I be given communion alongside you, in your Church? I can take the host and the wine?***
If you do not believe in the transubstantiation of the host and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus (literally), then, as St. Paul said, you endanger yourself by taking it unworthily. If you believe that and are brought into the Faith, then you would be welcomed with open arms.
***NO MAN, group of men, or institution can determine a man’s fate, or condemn him to Hell. That is Biblical. And that is opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.***
I detect false witness here. Wrong.
That is correct, but again, it is the moment of death and life of good works that will count, not the falsity of religion.
If a Muslim goes to his death professing the Jesus is not divine and did not die for our sins, as his false religion teaches, then of course he will not be saved. But if he dies relying on the mercy of God as he knows Him, then he is not denying Jesus, and then, who knows, Jesus might know him and save him, even if he does not know Jesus. If that Mulsim is saved, then it is through Jesus the sole mediator of salvation that he is.
direct contravention of your explanation of 841.
841 speaks of who MIGHT be saved. It does not speak of who is assuredly saved. The people who are assuredly saved are infants, and people who have a sacramental absolution of their sins, and received the last rites.
Go ahead and say it - Protestants aren't saved
For the fifth time: you are confusing your present beliefs and your future salvation. Protestants are not assured of their salvation. As a practical matter, Catholics are not assured of their salvation either, but for a different reason: a Protestant has no sacramental life to save him ordinarily, and the Catholic may not die a good death in the hands of a priest. I, Catholic, may die in pain cursing God because of some accident tomorrow, and I won't be saved.
Yet, Protestants, and Muslims, MAY be saved even contrary to their present erroneous beliefs, as the Catechism so clearly teaches.
would I be given communion alongside you, in your Church?
As a practical matter, yes, because no one will check your papers as you approach the Host. But you should not present yourself unless you formally convert to Catholicism, because, as St. Paul teaches, you will only work a condemnation on yourself. Before you take communion you must be interiorally in communion. Now you are not. You, for example, think that professions of faith alone save you. That belief places you outside of the communion. But, you are welcome to come to it, the path is clear.
1 Timothy 4:1-9 is probably what you are thinking about
1 ...faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. 20 Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Tim 1)
Compare that to the anathema rite.
“”What is the Biblical basis for this? “”
“Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And “EVERY ONE” that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God.” 1 John 7
“My dearest, if God hath so loved us; we also ought to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God “ABIDITH” in us, and his charity is perfected in us. In this we know that we abide in him, and he in us: because he hath given us of his spirit.”- 1 John 11-13
Emphasis mine
“”Thus the only thing we can do is evangelize as best we can, to let people hear the good news””
We agree on this!
“”Mine is still 12 hours away - the day is just getting started here in Suzhou, China.”
I wish you a Blessed morning than!
The New Testament is quite clear that there is no other truth or way than in and through Christ, and that one comes to the Father only through Christ. So, where is this universal salvation coming from (and it is universal salvation because all religions "acknowledge" some sort of a Creator—heck, even atheists "acknowledge" that something caused all this to exist!) is beyond me.
But, as regards an eternal God, a "plan," is an oxymoron. There is nothing to plan. God does not have to wait for the future to plan accordingly. If salvation is up to God and up to God only then salvation is a closed book, and has been for all eternity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.