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.
I never heard or read from the Orthodox side that perpetual virginity of Mary was grounds for losing one's salvation.
Tradition is well and good as long as it is positive and correct, and does not retard from future learning and growth, spiritually
First I think you are confusing tradition and (the Holy) Tradition. To put it simply Tradition is what is needed to correct tradition.
The Holy Tradition in the (Orthodox/Catholic) Church is the way of life of the Church, liturgically speaking after the simple rule known as lex orandi, lex credendi, that is "the way we pray is what we believe." However, departure from that rule is found in innovation and "development" particularly in the Western Church much more than the in the Eastern for various historical reasons.
The Orthodox side sees the Holy Tradition as the standard against which everything is tested. The more you depart from the life of the Church, as recorded by the fathers from the earliest known times (patristic writings), and from the consensus of the fathers (consensus patrum), the more you have strayed from the purity of faith. So, when there is a dispute, the East looks at the Holy Tradition to judge if it is in line with how the early Christians prayed (and believed), or not.
This approach is "standard operating procedure" in the East, and in the West at times. The current Pope, for example, is certainly perceived by the East as being orthodox and patristic in his approach to the life of the Church.
The Holy Tradition does not "retard" any "development" but serves as a quality check mechanism to make sure the development is not outside the faith held by the early Church. If you think about it, the Apostolic faith should have very little reason, and should lead to changes if it was delivered properly.
This is an arbitrary rule made by the Reformation, based on an assumption that the entire Church has been in apostasy for 1,500 years prior. The Bible itself does not say everything believed must be in the Bible. By definition, God is not limited in his options; he can reveal himself any way he wants; it doesn't have to be in the written form.
Besides, in extremis, one can argue that even a belief that a book is a word of God can qualify as idolatry.
This, I think, is the concern most Protestants have with Mariology, in that it may lead to idolatry accidentally
That is a very valid concern.
If you take a survey of US Catholics, I think you'll find a high percentage who do not understand the subtle difference between praying to Mary to ask her to ask Jesus to save us, and praying TO Mary to ask HER to save us
Although I have never heard it myself, I was gently reminded by Alex that the Orthodox actually have prayers asking Mary to save us! This is particularly disturbing because the Orthodox do not share the Catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception and consider Mary ontologically no different than you and me, but—unlike any of us—the most decent and saintly human being that ever lived, but human being nonetheless!
I have personally seen Orthodox faithful show signs of reverence than equal or exceed what you would expect reserved only for God and have asked them about this practice. Needless to say I received less than satisfactory answers.
So, I absolutely agree with the Protestant concerns and objections regarding the apparent "deification" of Mary in private and canonical practice,
That he did so sinlessly is expressly Christian, but if he were God from the beginning where is the sacrifice?
Is the belief that Mary is Christotokos a denial that Jesus became divine through obedience and faith or simply that He was not born divine?
Do you find it peculiar that Jesus the Christ had to ascend to his Father to complete his mission, bodily untouched by human corruption?
How would you critique or view the accuracy of this description from Wikipedia: Christology
It's hard to generalize like that. In some aspects the Orthodox Church is less dogmatic, but in others the Orthodox lead the way in being inflexible.
Liturgically, Mary is always mentioned as "Our most pure, ever-vrigin Lady, the Theotokos," but the Council of Ephesus refers to her only as the Holy Virgin Mary, Theotokos (Mother of God).
There is no doubt that all Christian Churches from that day on (early 5th century) subscribed to her as the Mother of God and that to this day the Churches that evolved from the Undivided Church (Latin, Greek, Coptic, Syrian) consider her a perpetual Virgin liturgically and otherwise.
There is no doubt that most Church theologians considered her pure before and after the Birth even as early as the 3rd century, and the Protoevangelium of James, an influential second century book is the main source of that belief only decades removed from the last living first century Apostles.
So, we can pretty much be sure than at least part of the Church believed in her perpetual virginity as early as the second century. That's 1,900 years! Does that prove it is true? Of course not. But it is pretty amazing that it was accepted as such as a matter of faith (de fide) early on, although it was not necessarily taught as a prerequisite for our salvation.
As a Protestant, though, I find a much greater stand-off with Roman Catholicism in that they demand you must accept everything said, everything based on that tradition and 1500 years of research, or you are a heretic (denying the Catechism) and will not be saved.
The Orthodox may appear less dogmatic because they have fewer dogmas, but the stricter adherence to Tradition makes them equally stand-offish, maybe even more, than the Catholics. Also, in the West, the word "heretic" attained a meaning somewhat different from the original. That's just because the Latin fathers were such poor learners of Greek. :)
wohich the English version was derived means to set aside. In fact it used to apply to things set aside for God (as sacrifice), but in Christianity, especially in Ecumenical Councils, it attained a meaning of being considered outside of Christianity (which could be interpreted, based on the belief that salvation is only in Christ, as equivalent to someone being condemned to hell, although this was to the meaning of anathemas).
After the break between the East and the West, the West "radicalized" the meaning of heresy to include even a ritual of condemning the anathematized to hell, which is scandalous to say the least.
I guess I think Christianity is a pretty simple set of ideas and beliefs, not a 2000+ list of rules and regulations to be followed. Christ set us free from the legalities of the Old Testament; to this Protestant the Catholic Church is attempting to take us back to those thousands and thousands of rules and regulations.
You would find that the Orthodox and Catholics stand united in disagreeing with you here. Having been voted somoene's favorite Bible skeptic on the FR, even I would have to disagree with you on that one. :)
I understand that; however, my understanding is that the Orthodox would not condemn me to hell; the Catholic would.
These are all excellent questions, which would be better served as separate posts. What most people don't realize is that all Christological disagreements find their justification in the New Testament. There is no doubt that one can make a case for each quoting from it.
Thus, can we say that Jesus had to achieve theosis, and why would he need a theosis? Was it a sin, even if it was a fleeting moment, for him to ask if the Father could take away the cup? Why did his body have to be glorified? What is meant by him being baptized and "receiving" the Holy Spirit? If John the Baptist was full of the Holy Spirit before his birth, why would Jesus be without the HS before his own birth, let alone baptism? And what was the purpose of tempting Jesus (full of the Holy Spirit!) by the devil? To "torture" the devil?
There is also evidence that, despite his (ontologic?) equality with the Father, the Son is portrayed as lesser than the Father, and he even says "The Father is greater than I." This subordination of the Son—the very stuff Arianism is made of—runs throughout the Christian writings of the first, second and 3rd century.
Moreover, the exact "mechanism" of Incarnation is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. What is considered orthodox Christology today has more to do with the conciliar battles won by a certain faction than anything found in any of the holy books, perhaps because it was the prevalent belief but it doesn't have to be so. Maybe the orthodox party just had better "lawyers!" :)
Ultimately, Incarnation itself would be yet another miracle, a mystery of God which is not ours to understand or figure out. So, just how do we know exactly what took place and which of the Christological versions is the true one? We don't. Different people believe different Christological formulas because it is in line with the nature of their beliefs, their theological boxes, and their perception of the scriptures in general.
This, of course, runs contrary to any faith that claims absolute truth or absolute knowledge, and here we have a mine trigger of Gnosticim, for any faith that is claimed as knowledge is Gnostic in its foundation. Equating faith, hope, belief, with knowledge is Gnostic no matter how you turn it around.
Another pitfall is, of course, claiming faith to be fact, for facts must offer factual proofs and faith doesn't. Yet, for some reason, most people find it necessary to have some sort of "proof" of why they believe what they believe or else their faith may not last. They can live with blind love but not with blind faith...curious.
Why are there so many versions of Christianity? Some say devil, others say the NT is often unclear, culturally alien, etc. while others yet say that it reflects out imperfect understanding of a (presumably) perfect text.
It also has to do with the perceived purpose of Christ's ministry and sacrifice, but it makes sense to conclude that if everything is God's will then the disunity among Christians was either what God wanted, in which case the NT is a contradiction of itself, or the whole things it is a colossal failure, sort of like Gen 6:6, where God "regrets" what had happened with his mankind—as if it happened against his will and knowledge!
I find Wiki comments in the chapter on Christiology very valid observations.
I believe that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church would probably not do that. :) It has been the position of the Latin Church since the Vatican II that those who reject the teachings of the Church cut themselves off from the life-giving mysteries (sacraments) of the Church and therefore incur self-excommunication.
In other words, either you receive the Eucharist unworthily (in the Catholic theological sense) or you stop receiving it all on your own because you no longer participate in the life of the Catholic Church, and (the belief is) God will count you as no longer of his own.
The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, will deny you the Eucharist if the Church knows of anything that you do or believe or profess that is contrary to the Church.
Nancy Pelosi and Joe Bidens in the Orthodox world would not be receiving the Eucharist, trust me. But you are right that the EOC is not and has never been in the business of condemning anyone to hell. That was never part of the declaration of heresy in the undivided Church but rather a Cathoic innovation after the Schism.
The East has never believed in God who condemns. Matthew's Chapter 25 (verse 31-end) speaks of those who have condemned themselves, by choosing not to follow Chirst. It is clearly presented as a choice. The choices you make are believed to carry consequences in the end. If you choose a life of sin, if you only go through the motions (fake it, tyr to fool God) then God will grant you your wish and "honor" your choice.
If you want to leave, God will not force you to stay, for forced love is no love. You can't make someone love you; love, by definition has to come from the heart. God-man relationship has to be genuine, respecting man's freedom that God granted him.
***I understand that; however, my understanding is that the Orthodox would not condemn me to hell; the Catholic would.***
No Catholic believes this. One man cannot ‘know’ the state of another’s soul; that is in God’s hands.
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.
And the condemnation, we believe is actually of the individual; God merely confirms it at the Judgement.
I meant to say of the individual by the individual. It is not God who condemns; God merely confirms.
That sounds problematic. First, the scripture simply says "Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God" (D-R Gen 6:9). The focus is on how he "walked" even before any law was given to him, let alone to Israel. More fundamentally, we Catholics do not believe there are two atonements, one for Israel and another for Christians. We believe that the work of Christ on the Cross atoned for all sin, including, retroactively, sins of the Jews and Gentiles prior to Christ. The historical role of Israel was to receive special law much like a beloved child receives extra schooling, in order to prepare the human race for the Redeemer, Who alone atones for anyone, Jew or Gentile, who would "walk" with Him. That schooling was not salvific in itself. It was, simply put, there to produce Mary the ever Virgin, who would be a fit mother for the Incarnate God.
Which leads to your question, "how Christ prevented Mary from sinning after his birth?"
Here we are looking at a situation where eternal, preexisting Christ designed His own mother, much like the Father designed His own people of Israel. Somehow that preparation, through the judges, kings apnd prophets of Israel, resulted in a human perfection that worked her way back to the purity of design which was Eve before the Fall. How did the Father make Eve? The answer is, perfect. Mary is second Eve, -- through her the second creation took place. Do you know that baptism, your second birth, makes you perfect? How? I don't know. It is a Holy Mystery, -- a Sacrament of the Church. The perfection of Mary at her conception was akin to that.
3 Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? 4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.(Romans 6)
St. Justin Martin reasoned:
Chapter 100. In what sense Christ is [called] Jacob, and Israel, and Son of ManJustin: Then what follows—'But You, the praise of Israel, inhabitest the holy place'—declared that He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the crucifixion; and this He has obtained from the Father. For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father.' and, 'No man knows the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.' Matthew 11:27 Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: 'The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' Matthew 16:21 He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear. For [Christ] called one of His disciples—previously known by the name of Simon—Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel); and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.' Luke 1:38 And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.
Mary simply would not sin. God can do that in a man, -- or woman. She is by conception what we are to become by the work of Christ in us gradually. This is how the Apostles describe sanctification:
2 Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: 3 As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. 5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; 6 And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; 7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. 8 For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.(2 Peter)
and
12 ...with fear and trembling work out your salvation. 13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. 14 And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; 15 That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the worldWhat a saint works out with fear and trembling step by step, for it is God working in him, Mary had all at once, for it was God working in her.(Philippians 2)
Thanks, Mark.
The Church is not in the business of condemning individuals to hell. Heretical beliefs are condemned, and individuals who promulgated the heresy are condemned for the defect of their belief. That process is called anathemization: a proclamation that a belief is a grave error and if practiced, in whoever practices it, endangers the salvation of his soul. Hopefully, the anathema serves as a warning to the heretic to come back to the Faith and reach salvation. It is a tool of salvation, rather than condemnation.
Anathemas can be lifted, upon certain conditions.
Nor is it unique to the Catholic Church. The Russian Orthodox Church, for example, anathemized, and rightly, Count Leo Tolstoy for his vaguely Quaker beliefs.
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.
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 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.
Saved are those who do good who do not think of or even know nothing of salvation and going to heaven, who do not count on it, who do not do so to please the Church, God, society or themselves, but for the sake of righteousness and nothing else. The intent must be pure and selfless.
Of course, there is a problem what righteousness is and how do we know our sense of righteousness is not corrupt. But that's another issue.
Then this illegitimate spawn of evil knows the Catholic Church's teachings a whole lot better than you.
Please see Catechism 846:
846 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.
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.
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.
Your Church will grant salvation to Muslims (see 841) while denying salvation to any who reject your mariology. Kosta50 and I are - according to your own Catechism - beyond salvation outside of your Church. According to your Catechism, while Kosta50 and I burn in Hell, Muslims and Catholics will be in Heaven praising God.
You can enter the Church through the same door a Muslim might.
Please explain that in light of Catechism 841 and 846.
I know what you teach, and reject some of it, and thus am a heretic and cut off from the church. I cannot be saved.
A Muslim terrorist - good old Ahmed who blows himself up killing worshiping Christians in Pakistan - will be in Heaven with you because he believes in the same God.
Fundamentally, your Church withholds salvation for those who are heretics, and that would include any who reject your mariology. Is this true or not? Can you state otherwise?
If I reject the concept of the ever-eternal virginity of Mary, am I not a heretic? And as a heretic, am I not cut off from the Catholic Church? And has not the Catholic Church said it is the means of salvation to the world?
If the answer is YES for all those questions, then regardless of how you want to spin it, your own dogma condemns Kosta50 and I to Hell. There is no way around it.
You mistake is to think that the content of your faith today, -- your denials and protestations -- determine your salvation in the future. They are, of course, not a good thing and they endanger your salvation. But your still have time till you are judged, according to your works, just like Catholic I, Orthodox Kosta or Muslim Achmed ibn Khattab have time to complete their conversion.
No one is completely saved till he is living. We all undergo conversion all our lives.
12... with fear and trembling work out your salvation. 13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. 14 And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; 15 That you may be blameless (Phil. 2)
Applies to everyone. If you think the Catechism says anything different, point it out.
I have: 841 and 846.
Where do you see the contradiction between 841, 846, and my post to you?
In 841, one needs only acknowledge God the Creator, not Jesus the Savior (in fact, as Muslims do, you can reject Jesus as Savior), to enter Heaven.
In 846, one can acknowledge God the Creator AND Jesus the Savior, yet reject the supremacy of the Catholic Church, and be denied entry to Heaven.
These two are inconsistent with the Bible (Jesus is the way to Salvation, you must come to the Father through Him).
And in each statement, the Catholic Church has become the way to God; that is in direct opposition the quoted scripture you provide.
But you’re dodging my questions: can a heretic be saved? Will heretics be in Heaven? Yes, No, or We Don’t Know?
Canon 841 merely says that the Muslims are "included" in "the plan of salvation". But not far from is, Canon 836 says that "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation." Canon 841 also acknowledges that the Muslim, compared to the pagans or the Atheists, adore God the Father, so that is, relatively to the others, helpful to them. The thrust of the paragraph is that everyone is called to salvation, because the Church was told to "baptize all nations".
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. If a Mulsim refuses to his last breath to enter it, he cannot be saved, and if a Protestant refuses to his last breath to enter it, he cannot be saved, and if a Catholic refuses to remain in it, he cannot be saved either.
This is the relevant chapter "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Your mistake is to read 841 as if the acknowledgement of the Creator is sufficient to enter Heaven. Canon 841 does not say that. The root of your mistake is probably the belief common to many Protestants, that a particular set of beliefs is both necessary and sufficient for salvation. The fact is, we are not saved by faith alone, -- faith of any kind.
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.