Roman Catholics

[Diane_Windsor]

I, personally, would like to state that (although differences of opinion may exist between us), I believe that both Orthodox and Catholics are part of the body of Christ, the eternal "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", and that NEITHER of us are heretics.

:scratch: Doesn't this statement go against Orthodox teaching?

Diane

[countrymousenc]

There seem to be a variety of opinions about this, and, to my knowledge, there has never been a pan-Orthodox Council called to decide the status of the things about which the two bodies disagree.

Take the papacy, for instance. It is true that the canons forbid any particular bishop to individually overrule any other particular bishop or group of bishops. However, when I think about all the things I have read at TAW concerning economia, I wonder whether there might, at certain times and under particular circumstances, be an occasion for solidifying a region under one bishop. I am not, repeat, not, saying that what the West did was right, but just pointing out that we can conveniently lean on the practice of economia when we are questioned about certain Orthodox practices, such as allowing divorce and remarriage, which is also a pretty big issue.

Neither do we have an official, conciliar, pan-Orthodox statement regarding whether Catholic, Protestant, or evangelical Christians belong to the body of Christ as well.

So, afaik, the best anyone can say is that it goes against opinions held by some Orthodox Christians. Here at TAW, you'll find both sides represented, as well as those of us who admit to being rather confused.

[gtsecc]

I guess Anglicans are Heretics?

[Wiffey]

:scratch: Doesn't this statement go against Orthodox teaching?

Diane

Even if it does, that is still my opinion. I am not in full agreement with my Catholic brethren, but I will NOT call fellow Christians who believe in Christ and the sacraments heretics. I believe that they are part of the mystical body of Christ.

I also think that when I stand before the dread judgment seat of Christ, I do not want to be pulled down by the weight of an unloving heart. I think that too much economia will be forgiven more easily than too little.

Again, I'm not saying I am correct: I am a laywoman with no great training to recommend me. But I think that Christ would prefer me to say:"I do not agree with my brother, but I do not deny he is my brother. Let me work with him to heal the breach between us."

Somehow I think that is more productive than: "You are wrong. You are not my brother." At that point the plank in my own eye would be so large as to prevent me from seeing well enough to remove the splinter in my brother's eye...

[Wiffey]

I guess Anglicans are Heretics?

To go out farther on a limb...

The reason that I discussed Catholics & Orthodox only, was that that was the focus of the discussion.

[Disclaimer: what follows is the personal opinion of one woman. It in no way reflects the official position of the Orthodox Church, or most Orthodox Christians in general...]

I do not think that traditional Anglicans are heretics. I do not think that Oriental Orthodox are heretics.

But even if I did, AFAIK, nobody has died and left me the arbiter of heresy. I do not think that I am so spiritually advanced that I can go around saying who is a heretic and who isn't. That's God's job. I have a hard enough time being a good wife, mother and nurse. I don't need to try to usurp God's job.


PS If I did not mention your church, do not assume I think you are a heretic. :wave:

[countrymousenc]

But I think that Christ would prefer me to say:"I do not agree with my brother, but I do not deny he is my brother. Let me work with him to heal the breach between us." Puts me in mind of the story of the Good Samaritan. :)

[2 cents]
Speaking from the perspective of a convert who was already baptized and trinitarian...

I know I had already been experiencing God's grace, although not as fully as now. What was incomplete has been made complete for me, but I do know that I already had a personal relationship with Christ, that some kind of provision had already been made for me. My theology needed work, yes, but it still does, and it will, most likely, for quite some time. I honestly don't have much of a clue as to what that means in terms of the question of who is and is not in the body of Christ. So, you'll have to lump me in with the slightly confused group. But that's okay for now. :)

[/end 2 cents]

[NewToLife]

Doesn't this statement go against Orthodox teaching?


Essentially you are correct that what you quoted in not in line with Orthodox teaching, whether or not Catholics are heretics ( this is debatable ) it is nevertheless entirely clear that they are not a part of Orthodoxy and therefore as far as Orthodox are concerned lie outside of the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church'.

[Orthodox Catholic]

I dont think the eastern orthodox accept us as having valid apostolic succession (I once heard that heresy "derails" any claim to apostolic succession, which rules out any eastern sees), and that that our orders arent valid.

oops. For some reason I thought the was the GT forum :sorry:

[SaintGeorge]

He does have a point Wiffy. You're beginning to tread on some very dangerous ground. Just because a person is a heretic doesn't mean you can't love them, but please remember the reverse is also true. Just because you love someone doesn't mean they're automatically part of the one true Church, it is possible for them to still be a heretic. And yes, by Orthodox teachings Anglicans have strayed from the truth and must come to repentance.

To phrase it in the most polite way possible, try to live by the following rule. The teachings of Christ cannot be compromised in order to give someone that warm fuzzy feeling inside. We do not know if the true Church exists whithin Roman Catholocism. We only know that it exists within Eastern Orthodoxy. Acknowledge and abhore heresy, but love the heretic.

[Diane_Windsor]

He does have a point Wiffy. You're beginning to tread on some very dangerous ground. Just because a person is a heretic doesn't mean you can't love them, but please remember the reverse is also true. Just because you love someone doesn't mean they're automatically part of the one true Church, it is possible for them to still be a heretic. And yes, by Orthodox teachings Anglicans have strayed from the truth and must come to repentance.

To phrase it in the most polite way possible, try to live by the following rule. The teachings of Christ cannot be compromised in order to give someone that warm fuzzy feeling inside. We do not know if the true Church exists whithin Roman Catholocism. We only know that it exists within Eastern Orthodoxy. Acknowledge and abhore heresy, but love the heretic.

Does Orthodoxy consider those who are not part of the ecclesiastical Orthodox Church damned unless they convert to Orthodoxy?

DW

[gzt]

No.

[xenia]

Does Orthodoxy consider those who are not part of the ecclesiastical Orthodox Church damned unless they convert to Orthodoxy?

No.

[Rilian]

Esran, you said it beautifully. To speak in true love means to speak the truth.

We know the church is one and it is visible. We know this is most manifest in communion which is the sign of our shared faith. I do not like to call individual people heretics, because God and/or their confessor only truly knows their heart. However, the schism was not an accident of history, or merely a political event. The Catholic church has accepted and even elevated to dogma heresy. The churches which split from the church of Rome have themselves fractured and embraced even more extensive heretical ideas. Those facts cannot be avoided.

What we can do is act in love and charity, and be the torchbearers of our faith. Our Holy Father St. John Chrysostom said if we did this at all times, there wouldn't be anyone who would not want to place themselves inside the church.

[Maximus]

I do not think that Oriental Orthodox are heretics.

Well, you have the decrees of more than one ecumenical council of the Church against you on that one, starting with Chalcedon in 451.

I don't want to start a big argument over this, but the leaders of the Anti-Chalcedonian churches still maintain that our Lord Jesus Christ has but one nature and one will. That amounts to two interrelated heresies: Monophysitism and Monothelitism.

Whether or not persons born into a particular sect are technically heretics is not something into which I want to delve. It might be better to refer to such persons by the gentler term heterodox.

BTW, the term Anti-Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedonian is more accurate than the mistaken "Oriental Orthodox."

One cannot be Orthodox and reject four of the seven holy ecumenical councils.

Rejecting even one of them - or any dogmatic part of any of them - renders one heterodox.

[Wiffey]

Maximus, my opinion is what it is, my opinion. I do not claim that it is objectively true, just that it is what I think. Just because I wouldn't call someone a heretic does NOT mean that I think we agree. I just do not happen to think that they are SO far in error as to warrant that nasty label.

I personally believe that Orthodoxy has the fullness of the truth. But I do NOT think that churches who are theologically close to us (sacramental, support Apostolic succession) are without God's love and grace.

[Maximus]

Maximus, my opinion is what it is, my opinion. I do not claim that it is objectively true, just that it is what I think. Just because I wouldn't call someone a heretic does NOT mean that I think we agree. I just do not happen to think that they are SO far in error as to warrant that nasty label.

I personally believe that Orthodoxy has the fullness of the truth. But I do NOT think that churches who are theologically close to us (sacramental, support Apostolic succession) are without God's love and grace.

I understand what you're saying.

I'm not big on nasty labels either.

Besides, it was the founding fathers of Monophysitism and their adherents who were actually heretics, to use the word in its correct sense.

Those who follow that tradition today do so, for the most part, because they were born into it and really know no better.

It is better to refer to them as heterdox, unless and until they show that they know what Orthodoxy is and reject it.

What troubles me about seeing all who profess to be Christians as our "brothers and sisters" is that it leads to the kind of sappy ecumenism that is based on sentiment rather than truth and results in compromises that violate the Deposit of Faith. It may itself be heretical since it leads one to the erroneous notion that there is more than one Church or that the Body of Christ can be divided.

Better to politely let the heterodox know where they stand than to leave them potentially lost in their errors.

[Wiffey]

Good point. I have no problem stating what I believe to be true. Tact and sensitivity are important if we want to get along with others. We can state our view without going out of our way to disparage the dearly held beliefs of other Christians. I think that the second we treat others with contempt, they get defensive and tune us out. How can you have a meaningful dialogue with someone you've just called a heretic? You can't.

Plus, to me, heresy implies that an individual invented something or threw something out. I don't think it applies to somebody who was raised in another tradition and is doing their best to serve Christ.

I fear this whole tendency to convince others about the goodness of Orthodoxy by tearing down their faith. What if they lose trust in their faith, then do not embrace Orthodoxy? This could be circumvented if we focused on the great beauty of Orthodox Tradition without launching a critique of (insert faith here). St.Seraphim of Sarov told us to acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around us would be converted. If we spent more time learning to truly live our Faith and treated each human being like the icon of Christ that they are, the love we'd exude would make people wonder if we were truly on to something...

When I came to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, it was not because I found Catholicism lacking. It was because I met an Orthodox Christian (my husband) who exuded such goodness and love that I had to see for myself the Faith that formed him. I went to a Divine Liturgy and met a priest whose faith made him shine. I wanted to know more, so I read books and discovered Orthodoxy. But I tell you this: if the priest I'd met had trashed the Catholic Church, where I had received nurturing and goodness and learned to love Christ in the first place, I would have walked out the door and never returned.

Our words have the power to hurt or heal. May God forgive me for the times that I have hurt others and for the words of comfort I have failed to say.

[countrymousenc]

We know the church is one and it is visible. We know this is most manifest in communion which is the sign of our shared faith.

Yes, the Church is one. But visible? Most of it is in Paradise awaiting the Resurrection, and it is possible, if not likely, that many of those were not Orthodox. It is not the habit of the Church to make assumptions about whom God may save, and we don't even presume to say that everyone within the visible Church (the one here on earth) will be saved.

I suppose the question might be, "Is the Orthodox Church and the body of Christ one and the same?" Perhaps it could be argued that, once in Paradise, all are Orthodox. Still, I haven't seen a consensus answer to the question. Are we really willing to say that no one in this life outside the visible Church has entered into Christ? I tell you what, I am really having a hard time thinking of people like Mother Theresa and Corrie Ten Boom as having been no part of Christ's body, as having not known Christ, during their lives here on earth. I might not agree with every theological idea they inherited from their respective traditions, but outside Christ? Wow.

[Xpycoctomos]

I just want to say that I am so glad Wiffey is here. I'm never able to rep her because I want to rep almost anything she writes! She explains my sentiments to the t but with humility and nuancing that I never could. So, thanks Wiffey!

God bless,

John

[Maximus]

Yes, the Church is one. But visible? Most of it is in Paradise awaiting the Resurrection, and it is possible, if not likely, that many of those were not Orthodox. It is not the habit of the Church to make assumptions about whom God may save, and we don't even presume to say that everyone within the visible Church (the one here on earth) will be saved.

I suppose the question might be, "Is the Orthodox Church and the body of Christ one and the same?" Perhaps it could be argued that, once in Paradise, all are Orthodox. Still, I haven't seen a consensus answer to the question. Are we really willing to say that no one in this life outside the visible Church has entered into Christ? I tell you what, I am really having a hard time thinking of people like Mother Theresa and Corrie Ten Boom as having been no part of Christ's body, as having not known Christ, during their lives here on earth. I might not agree with every theological idea they inherited from their respective traditions, but outside Christ? Wow.

I think there are two errors to avoid: 1. saying that such persons cannot be saved, and 2. saying that they are definitely a part of the Church, Christ's Body.

We cannot pass judgment upon them either way.

It is possible, however, to know whether or not someone belongs to the Church here on earth that we can see and touch and smell, etc.

The others must be left up to God.

Undoubtedly some of them will be saved and some of those of us inside will not.

[SaintGeorge]

We know where the Church is, but not where it isn't. Which would you rather have, certain salvation or questionable salvation?

[Matrona]

I think there are two errors to avoid: 1. saying that such persons cannot be saved, and 2. saying that they are definitely a part of the Church, Christ's Body.

We cannot pass judgment upon them either way.

It is possible, however, to know whether or not someone belongs to the Church here on earth that we can see and touch and smell, etc.

The others must be left up to God.

Undoubtedly some of them will be saved and some of those of us inside will not.

Well said, brother. "You must spread some reputation around," and all of that. :)

[ufonium2]

Even if it does, that is still my opinion. I am not in full agreement with my Catholic brethren, but I will NOT call fellow Christians who believe in Christ and the sacraments heretics. I believe that they are part of the mystical body of Christ.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that by definition you have to be a Christian (at least professing belief in Jesus) to be a heretic. We only use the term "heretic" for those who were members of the group at the time they diverged from its teachings. So, the guy who started wicca couldn't be considered a heretic, since he was never in the Christian group to begin with. But someone like Benny Hinn, for instance, began as part of the group and still self-identifies as part of the group even as he teaches heresy, so he could rightly be called a heretic even though he believes in Jesus (actually because he believes in Jesus, otherwise he'd just be another non-Christian.)

So, calling someone a heretic isn't the same as saying they aren't Christian.

[Xpycoctomos]

We know where the Church is, but not where it isn't. Which would you rather have, certain salvation or questionable salvation?

While I agree with you, so would anyother Christian of any persuasion. It kind of begs the question. Catholics believe they hold the fullness of the Truth so they would say "Certain salvation, that's why Im Catholic"

I will say however that if we are going to start talking aobut salvation we should be most concerned about ourselves if we believe we have been entrusted witht he fullness of the truth... not the the Catholic down the street. My priest once said "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and bishops" and he didn't mean Catholic ones. While no one can KNOW this for certain, it stands to reason (and scripture) that God holds all accountable according to what they've been given. I guess when I give this spiel I am usually thinking of Non-christians...I tend to think that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are held jsut as accountable as you and I because their tradition is still so rooted in that of the True Church, even if they have strayed in certain ways. But that's just my view. If one holds the view that they are all out heretics, so be it, but I think he or she would then be obliged to believe that God expects much more from us than them.

John

[countrymousenc]

I think there are two errors to avoid: 1. saying that such persons cannot be saved, and 2. saying that they are definitely a part of the Church, Christ's Body.

We cannot pass judgment upon them either way.
I agree, Maximus. My point, perhaps not stated very well, is that I'd remain indecisive with fear and trembling before pronouncing that either of the women that I mentioned, among many other men and women as well, were outside the body of Christ during their earthly lives on the basis that they were not Orthodox, capital O. Best I can say is that God alone knows.

It is possible, however, to know whether or not someone belongs to the Church here on earth that we can see and touch and smell, etc.

The others must be left up to God.

Undoubtedly some of them will be saved and some of those of us inside will not. Of course.

[xenia]

When we see the love of Christ shining through a person, no matter what church, we know we are in the presence of a Christian.

[Orthosdoxa]

Good point, Ufonium.

And OT, but did y'all know that Benny Hinn was raised Orthodox? :eek:

[Xpycoctomos]

Good point, Ufonium.

And OT, but did y'all know that Benny Hinn was raised Orthodox? :eek:

no idea.... too bad

So was Cat Stevens :(

[Orthosdoxa]

Cat Stevens

eek! I think sweet Moses told me that once, but I'd forgotten.

So was David Sedaris, the outrageously funny (and outrageously flamboyantly gay) comic writer. His stuff is laugh out loud, blow pop out your nose, embarrass yourself in a restaurant funny - but the stuff he says about the Holy Church is where I stop laughing and just say Lord have mercy.

[Benedicta00]

Essentially you are correct that what you quoted in not in line with Orthodox teaching, whether or not Catholics are heretics ( this is debatable ) it is nevertheless entirely clear that they are not a part of Orthodoxy and therefore as far as Orthodox are concerned lie outside of the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church'.
Excuse me for chiming in here but isn’t this, said in the opposite direction, for lack of a better way of putting it, what ticked maximus off?

So for a Catholic, it was wrong but it’s right for a Orthodox? Please tell me this is not true?

[Benedicta00]

He does have a point Wiffy. You're beginning to tread on some very dangerous ground. Just because a person is a heretic doesn't mean you can't love them, but please remember the reverse is also true. Just because you love someone doesn't mean they're automatically part of the one true Church, it is possible for them to still be a heretic. And yes, by Orthodox teachings Anglicans have strayed from the truth and must come to repentance.

To phrase it in the most polite way possible, try to live by the following rule. The teachings of Christ cannot be compromised in order to give someone that warm fuzzy feeling inside. We do not know if the true Church exists whithin Roman Catholocism. We only know that it exists within Eastern Orthodoxy. Acknowledge and abhore heresy, but love the heretic.
And this is just what nyj said and it was wrong for him, but right for y’all, do I have this right? Yes or no?

[Xpycoctomos]

Shelby, can you quote NYJ? I'm not trying to corner you. i just want to see what you're referring to.

[countrymousenc]

Excuse me for chiming in here but isn’t this, said in the opposite direction, for lack of a better way of putting it, what ticked maximus off?

So for a Catholic, it was wrong but it’s right for a Orthodox? Please tell me this is not true?


Does sound like a double standard, working from either direction. (Btw, I like Dr. Phil, too.) Personally, I respect a Catholic's right to state that he or she believes the Catholic Church to be the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, since that's part of what you must confess in order to be Catholic. Conversely, in order to be Orthodox, we must believe that it is the Orthodox Church being described by that phrase.

And it's time we all got over getting offended by that.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think everyone knows what my views of Churches outside of Orthodoxy is.

[Xpycoctomos]

And it's time we all got over getting offended by that.

Good point sista'!

[Xpycoctomos]

I think everyone knows what my views of Churches outside of Orthodoxy is.

we do.

[Benedicta00]

Does sound like a double standard, working from either direction. (Btw, I like Dr. Phil, too.) Personally, I respect a Catholic's right to state that he or she believes the Catholic Church to be the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, since that's part of what you must confess in order to be Catholic. Conversely, in order to be Orthodox, we must believe that it is the Orthodox Church being described by that phrase.

And it's time we all got over getting offended by that.
I'm not offended my problem isn’t the double standard. My problem is the irony. As a Catholic, no salvation outside the Catholic Church, as a Orthodox, no salvation outside the Orthodox Church. I guess it all boils down to who is more exclusive with this, is how we measure which church is the “true” Church.

[Maximus]

Excuse me for chiming in here but isn’t this, said in the opposite direction, for lack of a better way of putting it, what ticked maximus off?

So for a Catholic, it was wrong but it’s right for a Orthodox? Please tell me this is not true?

Who's "ticked off"?

I'm not. I hope I haven't given the impression that I am.

Does sound like a double standard, working from either direction.

What "double standard"?

I think you all are making a fundamental mistake here.

I did NOT disagree with nyj's right to say, from the Latin perspective, that the Orthodox Church is guilty of heresy. That's what he believes, after all.

I disagreed with what he said, i.e., that the Orthodox Church is guilty of heresy, not his right to say it.

There is a difference.

I do not believe, obviously, that the Orthodox Church is guilty of heresy.

I hope no one here is silly enough to think that one post (or even a million posts) in an internet religion forum precipitated my decision not to join the Latin Church.

I have not discussed all of my reasoning and probably will not, at least not right away.

Why?

Because I do not want to be a source of hostility and conflict.

That is why I requested that my "FYI - An Apology" thread be closed permanently.

It was getting out of hand.

BTW, if I was "ticked off," why haven't I used this apparent golden opportunity - a thread entitled "Roman Catholics," started by someone else - to rail and vent my supposed spleen?

Check out my posts here, folks.

Not an anti-Roman diatribe in the lot of them.

[Matrona]

For the record, I think it would be nice if people stopped talking about Maximus as if he is some chattel that you can just trade back and forth. I don't know if he feels this way, but that is the feeling I have been getting recently and it just doesn't do to talk about someone this way.

Also, I do not give Roman Catholics a hard time if they take a hard line. I am torked by the "two lungs" attitude. The Holy Spirit cannot simultaneously proceed from the Father alone and from the Father and the Son, any more than the Body of Christ can be cleaved in two. I find our Lord's plea in Gethsemane for His followers to be one, EXTREMELY hard to reconcile with the "two lungs". The unity of the faith is where we cannot distinguish between the early followers of Christ and ourselves. Timelessness is the unity of the Orthodox Church. Part of the reason I was converted to Orthodoxy was because I witnessed how Orthodox can identify with their fellow Orthodox contemporaries as well as they identify with fellow Orthodox who lived hundreds or over a thousand years before.

And, as others have pointed out, the accusation of heresy is not a condemnation to hell, some people who raise objections to it, seem to think it is. I do NOT believe Roman Catholics are going to go to hell because they are separated from Orthodoxy. I DO believe they CAN be saved in spite of being separated from Orthodoxy. Even if they were to openly reject Orthodoxy, God is not the accuser who searches for ways to condemn us! God searches for ways to SAVE us! ALL of us!

THAT's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Moros]

Roman Catholics

Are not Orthodox.

[Rilian]

Yes, the Church is one. But visible? Most of it is in Paradise awaiting the Resurrection, and it is possible, if not likely, that many of those were not Orthodox. It is not the habit of the Church to make assumptions about whom God may save, and we don't even presume to say that everyone within the visible Church (the one here on earth) will be saved.

Yes, definitely visible. A common Protestant idea is that the body of Christ is a mystical body only, it is an invisible body of believers. Our church is a visible entity however, we participate materially in the sacraments. Christ passed to the apostles the power to bind and loose, and that is the charism carried to this day by the bishops. The power of forgiveness and the workings of grace we receive for instance through baptism, communion, confession and holy unction. It is the hospital of the sick and we must know where it resides.

That is not a presumption of who is saved, only God knows that, and we should each tremble that we will face the day of judgement. It is likely there are some in the church who will not be saved, and some out of it who will be.

I agree with Alexis Khomiakov, who wrote a great essay on this topic called The Church is One (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_is_one_e.htm). He said there is one church on heaven and earth, it exists now and has from all time and will in to eternity. It is from the perspective of man, living now, that there is an element of invisibility.

[Benedicta00]

Who's "ticked off"?

I'm not. I hope I haven't given the impression that I am.



What "double standard"?

I think you all are making a fundamental mistake here.

I did NOT disagree with nyj's right to say, from the Latin perspective, that the Orthodox Church is guilty of heresy. That's what he believes, after all.

I disagreed with what he said, i.e., that the Orthodox Church is guilty of heresy, not his right to say it.

There is a difference.

I do not believe, obviously, that the Orthodox Church is guilty of heresy.

I hope no one here is silly enough to think that one post (or even a million posts) in an internet religion forum precipitated my decision not to join the Latin Church.

I have not discussed all of my reasoning and probably will not, at least not right away.

Why?

Because I do not want to be a source of hostility and conflict.

That is why I requested that my "FYI - An Apology" thread be closed permanently.

It was getting out of hand.

BTW, if I was "ticked off," why haven't I used this apparent golden opportunity - a thread entitled "Roman Catholics," started by someone else - to rail and vent my supposed spleen?

Check out my posts here, folks.

Not an anti-Roman diatribe in the lot of them.
Like I said, it’s the irony. You were not happy with the Church’s doctrine of ecumenism but disagreed that the EO denial of the papacy is heresy.

[Maximus]

Like I said, it’s the irony. You were not happy with the Church’s doctrine of ecumenism but disagreed that the EO denial of the papacy is heresy.

Where's the irony?

The two are not comparable.

How is the denial of papal infallibility even remotely like the sort of sappy ecumenism that says things like, "the plan of salvation includes . . . the Muslims"?

BTW, ecumenism was not my only concern.

You really do not know what my concerns were, because I have not publicly aired them.

[Maximus]

Like I said, it’s the irony. You were not happy with the Church’s doctrine of ecumenism but disagreed that the EO denial of the papacy is heresy.

Ah, the light dawns on me.

You seem to think that I rejected Roman ecumenism, yet was unwilling to call the Orthodox heretics out of another form of my own sort of selective ecumenism.

That is what you believe is ironic (if not hypocritical on my part), isn't it?

I can see now why you might think that.

However, that is not the case. By the time I wrote my reply to nyj, I had already made up my mind that the Roman Church is wrong and the Orthodox Church is right.

Therefore my opposition to the accusation of heresy against the Orthodox was not motivated by any kind of feelings of ecumenism in any way, shape, or form.

It was motivated by my belief that the Orthodox are right.

[Benedicta00]

Ah, the light dawns on me.

You seem to think that I rejected Roman ecumenism, yet was unwilling to call the Orthodox heretics out of another form of my own sort of selective ecumenism.

That is what you believe is ironic (if not hypocritical on my part), isn't it?

I can see now why you might think that.

However, that is not the case. By the time I wrote my reply to nyj, I had already made up my mind that the Roman Church is wrong and the Orthodox Church is right.

Therefore my opposition to the accusation of heresy against the Orthodox was not motivated by any kind of feelings of ecumenism in any way, shape, or form.

It was motivated by my belief that the Orthodox are right.
Yes, that was it. I’m glad you cleared that up. Your reason are your own between you and God, not me, you and God and I do not condemn you for it. I would be curios to hear why you wanted to convert in the first place but it’s really not my business.

FWIW, I don’t believe in the sappy ecumenism either but I am not ready to say souls are damned because I just dunno. I know what the truth is but that doesn’t mean I know who goes where.

[Michael the Iconographer]

For the record, I think it would be nice if people stopped talking about Maximus as if he is some chattel that you can just trade back and forth. I don't know if he feels this way, but that is the feeling I have been getting recently and it just doesn't do to talk about someone this way.

Also, I do not give Roman Catholics a hard time if they take a hard line. I am torked by the "two lungs" attitude. The Holy Spirit cannot simultaneously proceed from the Father alone and from the Father and the Son, any more than the Body of Christ can be cleaved in two. I find our Lord's plea in Gethsemane for His followers to be one, EXTREMELY hard to reconcile with the "two lungs". The unity of the faith is where we cannot distinguish between the early followers of Christ and ourselves. Timelessness is the unity of the Orthodox Church. Part of the reason I was converted to Orthodoxy was because I witnessed how Orthodox can identify with their fellow Orthodox contemporaries as well as they identify with fellow Orthodox who lived hundreds or over a thousand years before.

And, as others have pointed out, the accusation of heresy is not a condemnation to hell, some people who raise objections to it, seem to think it is. I do NOT believe Roman Catholics are going to go to hell because they are separated from Orthodoxy. I DO believe they CAN be saved in spite of being separated from Orthodoxy. Even if they were to openly reject Orthodoxy, God is not the accuser who searches for ways to condemn us! God searches for ways to SAVE us! ALL of us!

THAT's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Thank you Matrona, very well said indeed!

[NewToLife]

Excuse me for chiming in here but isn’t this, said in the opposite direction, for lack of a better way of putting it, what ticked maximus off?

So for a Catholic, it was wrong but it’s right for a Orthodox? Please tell me this is not true?


I cannot comment on what 'ticked Maximus off' but I do stand by my comment. To clarify I would not apply the label heretic to individual Catholics, neither do I deny that grace may operate outside of Orthodoxy or that God may have mercy on a non Orthodox, nevertheless to be outside of Orthodoxy is nevertheless to be outside of the Church. The body of Christ is not, has not and can not be divided!

Please understand that my intention is not to hurt you in any way, simply to maintain what Orthodoxy has taught through the ages.

[Dust and Ashes]

God is not the accuser who searches for ways to condemn us! God searches for ways to SAVE us! ALL of us!

THAT's my story and I'm sticking to it.

And once again, your "story" has led you into my signature. ;) :thumbsup: Hope you don't mind.

[Rilian]

FWIW, I don’t believe in the sappy ecumenism either but I am not ready to say souls are damned because I just dunno. I know what the truth is but that doesn’t mean I know who goes where.

Who has said they do? I haven't seen anyone saying they know who or who isn't saved.

[Matrona]

And once again, your "story" has led you into my signature. ;) :thumbsup: Hope you don't mind.

Why thank you. :blush:

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, countrymouse! :wave:

Take the papacy, for instance.

Well, not to be a Historical nitpicker, but in fact, papal supremacy have been condemned twice by the Eastern Patriarch.

The Encyclical of 1848 (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/ency1848.html), written in response to Pope Pius IX;

And the Encyclical of 1895 (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/ency1895.html), in response to Pope Leo XIII.

As Bp. Kallistos mentioned on his The Orthodox Church, both Encyclicals have acquired ecumenical authority in the Church.

In XC,
Rick

[Wiffey]

I think it is good to reflect on the fact that being a member of the Church is not any guarantee of salvation. Even St.Paul had to work out his salvation with fear and trembling. Before we look for the presence of sin in others, we are called to look for it where it is the most dangerous: in our own hearts. If we consider ourselves to be the lowliest sinners, we are less likely to be derailed by pride and fall into the trap of judging others. For the measure with which we judge others is the measure that we ourselves will be judged by. (And I don't know about y'all, but I already have enough to atone for!)

Does that mean that we need to adopt an attitude of moral relativism and eschew judgment entirely? I don't think so. But we do need to be aware of our own human foibles and limitations. My personal opinion is that we need to make sure that when we apply our discernment, that we do so in as loving a way as possible, from a motivation to educate and not condemn. I think that is precisely what some of the world's great Saints have done. If they glowed, it was from love, not wrath.

Obviously I have a certain perspective: I agree with Orthodoxy. But I can acknowledge that God's grace is not exclusively confined to the limits of the visible Orthodox Church. Look at St. Theresa of Calcutta! Mother Theresa may not have been Orthodox, but she was one of the greatest Christians ever. She exuded love and treated the lowliest as if they were Christ Himself. If she isn't in Paradise right now, then none of us have any shot at it. (Again, only an opinion.)

Knowing God isn't just a theological exercise. It is struggling to acquire the Holy Spirit. It is growing in love, mercy, forgiveness and repentance. There are plenty of devout Catholics who lead Christ centered lives and who, IMHO, may well get into Heaven more easily than some nominal (C & E) Orthodox. We may have the fullness of the truth: it doesn't mean that others are devoid of truth. We don't own a copyright on the Holy Spirit.

FWIW, my statements in this post are not a reaction to anybody here at TAW. A fellow parishioner ordered some books from a conservative Orthodox publisher in Greece, and he gave me a book (in English) that they mistakenly sent him. The gist of the entire book was how nobody outside of the visible Orthodox Church has any hope of salvation. The tone was dreadful. I wanted to throw it out, but it had the Theotokos on the cover. My husband took a look at it and stashed it under a pile of old books in the basement.

[Oblio]

The gist of the entire book was how nobody outside of the visible Orthodox Church has any hope of salvation. The tone was dreadful. I wanted to throw it out, but it had the Theotokos on the cover. My husband took a look at it and stashed it under a pile of old books in the basement.


Cut the cover out and make an icon out of it, or respectfully burn it and bury the ashes where they will not be trod upon. Likewise, you could burn the entire book if there are any Holy writings or images within it.

[Wiffey]

Cut the cover out and make an icon out of it, or respectfully burn it and bury the ashes where they will not be trod upon. Likewise, you could burn the entire book if there are any Holy writings or images within it.

Good idea. Thankyou...

[Oblio]

You might also be able to bring it to church and give it to an acolyte for proper disposal with other Holy things.

[Rilian]

The gist of the entire book was how nobody outside of the visible Orthodox Church has any hope of salvation.

There are extremists who even view other Orthodox in this light. The followers of Metropolitan Gerontios think the state church of Greece is without grace. The Matthewites think they are the last true Orthodox on earth. etc. ,etc., etc.

I’ll just restate I firmly believe the Orthodox Church is the church Christ founded, maintains the teachings of the apostles, and conveys the grace and forgiveness we need to reconcile ourselves with God. It is one and it is visible, in heaven and earth. What happens outside of the church is not my place to judge, that is for God. Many other Christians, and even non Christians (Gandhi for instance) have lived lives very much attune with that of Christ, though I think their churches or religions contain erroneous teachings. We have to separate what God has founded from the ethical actions of humans, to link the two quickly finds us in a state of ecclesiological relativism.

Personally I think the rigorists and the ecumenists fall in to the same trap. They are willing to definitively claim who has the spirit and who does not independently of the consensus view of the church. They are moving the boundaries as they see fit. We know where the spirit is, and that is what belies the oneness and wholeness of Orthodoxy as a unified entity, but beyond that I think we should be content to say the spirit moves where he wills.

[countrymousenc]

For the record, I think it would be nice if people stopped talking about Maximus as if he is some chattel that you can just trade back and forth. I don't know if he feels this way, but that is the feeling I have been getting recently and it just doesn't do to talk about someone this way.

Also, I do not give Roman Catholics a hard time if they take a hard line. I am torked by the "two lungs" attitude. The Holy Spirit cannot simultaneously proceed from the Father alone and from the Father and the Son, any more than the Body of Christ can be cleaved in two. I find our Lord's plea in Gethsemane for His followers to be one, EXTREMELY hard to reconcile with the "two lungs". The unity of the faith is where we cannot distinguish between the early followers of Christ and ourselves. Timelessness is the unity of the Orthodox Church. Part of the reason I was converted to Orthodoxy was because I witnessed how Orthodox can identify with their fellow Orthodox contemporaries as well as they identify with fellow Orthodox who lived hundreds or over a thousand years before.

And, as others have pointed out, the accusation of heresy is not a condemnation to hell, some people who raise objections to it, seem to think it is. I do NOT believe Roman Catholics are going to go to hell because they are separated from Orthodoxy. I DO believe they CAN be saved in spite of being separated from Orthodoxy. Even if they were to openly reject Orthodoxy, God is not the accuser who searches for ways to condemn us! God searches for ways to SAVE us! ALL of us!

THAT's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Kudos, Matrona. :thumbsup: I have to admit, at times I have misunderstood your position, but I can agree with everything you posted above.



Well, not to be a Historical nitpicker, but in fact, papal supremacy have been condemned twice by the Eastern Patriarch.

The Encyclical of 1848, written in response to Pope Pius IX;

And the Encyclical of 1895, in response to Pope Leo XIII.

As Bp. Kallistos mentioned on his The Orthodox Church, both Encyclicals have acquired ecumenical authority in the Church.

Hi Rick. :)

Thanks for the information. I copied it to a sticky note for future reference. That's one less thing I have to be confused about, so that helps tremendously.



Yes, definitely visible. A common Protestant idea is that the body of Christ is a mystical body only, it is an invisible body of believers. Our church is a visible entity however, we participate materially in the sacraments. Christ passed to the apostles the power to bind and loose, and that is the charism carried to this day by the bishops. The power of forgiveness and the workings of grace we receive for instance through baptism, communion, confession and holy unction. It is the hospital of the sick and we must know where it resides.

That is not a presumption of who is saved, only God knows that, and we should each tremble that we will face the day of judgement. It is likely there are some in the church who will not be saved, and some out of it who will be.

I agree with Alexis Khomiakov, who wrote a great essay on this topic called The Church is One. He said there is one church on heaven and earth, it exists now and has from all time and will in to eternity. It is from the perspective of man, living now, that there is an element of invisibility.


Okay, that rings true, makes sense, and fits with what seems to be the consensus of what I've read and heard thus far.

Now back to the other question, about whether the visible Church (the Orthodox Church) = the body of Christ on Earth and no one here on planet Earth is within the body of Christ without also being within the visible Orthodox Church. If Bishop Kallistos Ware is correct in saying that we know where the Church is but not where the Church isn't, then the answer would be "no." Of course, no single individual, even though he be a Bishop, is infallible, and he may be wrong about that.

Maybe it will help me to lean a bit on having previously learned to think in terms of covenant and covenant community. We know from the record of the Scriptures that God loved and made provision for people outside the Old Covenant community, Israel. I think it's safe to say that those who became separated from that community through heresy (the tribes that split off after Solomon's reign) were not completely alienated from God's love and grace, but they did cease to have many of the benefits of the covenant. So, we have stories of Gentiles and Samaritans who, at times, were actually more pleasing to God that some of the "insiders," so to speak, as well as insiders who were ultimately lost, some even through their pride at being insiders. Then, deviation from the Covenant and the resulting separation from the Covenant Community (the Church) is heresy, and does do harm, robbing people of many of the benefits they could have, but it is not an automatic eternal condemnation.

See, the thing is, this is something that most Protestants and evangelicals, other than proponents of Covenant Theology (mainly Presbyterians), do not understand, and when we intimate that they are not really members of the body of Christ, it does tend to send them running the other way. They're used to hearing that from Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, after all, and an automatic association understandably pops into their minds. That's not a reason to lie to them, of course, which would only make the situation worse. But we do have a lot of Orthodox folks, including clergy, taking the "We just don't really know" position, such as Bishop Kallistos. That is what has been confusing me.

Thanks for letting me ramble and think out loud. :)

[NewToLife]

But we do have a lot of Orthodox folks, including clergy, taking the "We just don't really know" position, such as Bishop Kallistos. That is what has been confusing me.

I think perhaps that when people say that they do not know where the church is not they are reflecting on the activities of the church rather than its essense. That is, we know very well who is a member of the church and who is not but we do not know that the churches activities and influence are confined to those who are within it. Personally I believe that we have good reason to assume that the church is indeed not so limited in this aspect and that grace is made available beyond her boundaries but through her activities and presence in the world.

On the other hand I could be wrong :).

[Rilian]

But we do have a lot of Orthodox folks, including clergy, taking the "We just don't really know" position, such as Bishop Kallistos. That is what has been confusing me.

To me, this was one of the things that most made sense about Orthodoxy. We are willing to say the Orthodox Church is the true church, we know grace is present and active in it. We know that's not a ticket to salvation though by any stretch of the imagination. Yet I don't think this belief requires us to go the extra stop of saying where grace is not. In this sense I think Orthodox ecclesial idenity is one of positive affirmation (we know where grace is), that does not require a negative construct (we know where grace is not) in order to maintain its consistency. I believe this is the majority view from what I gather, though certainly many people may disagree with that.

One essay I found very helpful on this topic is by Fr. Florovsky entitled The Limits of the Church (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm). I think it's a very good treatment of the nuances of this subject.

[countrymousenc]

To me, this was one of the things that most made sense about Orthodoxy. We are willing to say the Orthodox Church is the true church, we know grace is present and active in it. We know that's not a ticket to salvation though by any stretch of the imagination. Yet I don't think this belief requires us to go the extra stop of saying where grace is not. In this sense I think Orthodox ecclesial idenity is one of positive affirmation (we know where grace is), that does not require a negative construct (we know where grace is not) in order to maintain its consistency. I believe this is the majority view from what I gather, though certainly many people may disagree with that. Okay, and that rings true, but what Bishop Kallistos wrote and what many people have latched onto is that we don't know where the Church is not. That seems to go against the grain of the Church being visible, and, in view of the Eucharist, being one. I would tend to think, especially if I understood what you posted earlier, that it is the Eucharist that defines the visible boundaries of the Church, and that, if the Church is visible, then we also know where it is not as well as where it is. But, that would not mean that there is no grace outside the Church. ???

[Mary of Bethany]

I don't even know how to get my mind around the things that are being said about heretics, heterodox, Church, grace, etc.

All I know is that my beloved late father, a devout Southern Baptist, is now with the Lord. If he isn't, none of us will be. And I know, as countrymouse said, that I have mercifully experienced God's grace throughout my life, whether as a Southern Baptist or an Anglican or now, thankfully, as an Orthodox, as have most of us since we are are mostly converts.

Christ's Body is a Mystery. His Body is not divided, yet many, many Christians throughout the ages have indeed been separated from His Church through no fault of their own, and have sought Him as best they knew how. So in some way they were and are a part of His Body.

Mary

[Fotina]

I think it helps to remember that the Church is the Body of Christ--for real!

I mean, Christ is our salvation. Christ is Life. All else is death and dieing. We believe the Orthodox Church to be that real, mystical, true Body of Christ our God and Savior. We cling to her literally for dear Life and thank God He has revealed this to us.

Anyone who escapes death is saved only by and through Christ, who alone is Life. Beyond that is not revealed to us. But we can pray for God's mercy.:crosseo:

Fotina

[Rilian]

I would tend to think, especially if I understood what you posted earlier, that it is the Eucharist that defines the visible boundaries of the Church, and that, if the Church is visible, then we also know where it is not as well as where it is. But, that would not mean that there is no grace outside the Church. ???

I think that would be the logical conclusion if you believed that it is only through the sacraments that grace is imparted. I think we would say that the sacraments are the principle and perhaps most tangible way grace is given to us, but not the only way. Anything in God’s creation can become sacramental if infused with God’s grace. St. Seraphim of Sarov’s face for example shone with the uncreated light of God because of the fruits of the holy spirit which he acquired.

We can see what Christ has laid out for us in the church, but we must also recognize there is a great deal of mystery to the purposes and actions of God which we will never understand. To me, St. Theophan the Recluse offers the best advice. We should worry about our own salvation and not that of our neighbor. Doing that above all else means praying, communing, confessing and repenting.

[countrymousenc]

I think that would be the logical conclusion if you believed that it is only through the sacraments that grace is imparted.
I don't quite understand. I do not believe that grace is only imparted through the sacraments, and I do believe that it is most likely that God's grace is not limited to the visible Church.

Let me "try this on for size" - I'm still in the process of thinking through it. The Church cannot be found outside Christ, but Christ's presence and grace are not limited to His Church. He works, through the Holy Spirit, wherever and however He will. Christians outside the Church most likely (or as far as we know) do have real faith in Christ in some measure, do enjoy real relationship with Him in some measure, and probably are being saved, even though they do not have the full benefits that we have. They are His (everything, after all is His) in some way. Their heresies do hinder them, but do not necessarily render them hopeless.

???

I think we would say that the sacraments are the principle and perhaps most tangible way grace is given to us, but not the only way. Anything in God’s creation can become sacramental if infused with God’s grace. St. Seraphim of Sarov’s face for example shone with the uncreated light of God because of the fruits of the holy spirit which he acquired. Agreed.

We can see what Christ has laid out for us in the church, but we must also recognize there is a great deal of mystery to the purposes and actions of God which we will never understand. To me, St. Theophan the Recluse offers the best advice. We should worry about our own salvation and not that of our neighbor. Doing that above all else means praying, communing, confessing and repenting.

True, we should not nitpick or browbeat our neighbor about his salvation. However, I can't help thinking that we should be praying for his salvation and ready to share what is ours to the extent that we can. We are greatly blessed.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Good point, Ufonium.

And OT, but did y'all know that Benny Hinn was raised Orthodox? :eek:

NO WAY!!!

YES WAY?

WOW..... When did he fall and hit his head?


Forgive me....:liturgy:

[InnerPhyre]

:scratch: Doesn't this statement go against Orthodox teaching?

Diane


Jeez way to narc lol

[Rilian]

I don't quite understand. I do not believe that grace is only imparted through the sacraments, and I do believe that it is most likely that God's grace is not limited to the visible Church.

I thought you were posing the hypothetical that grace is limited to the sacraments, and saying the logical conclusion would be that the spirit would be confined to them. It was my misunderstanding.

Let me "try this on for size" - I'm still in the process of thinking through it. The Church cannot be found outside Christ, but Christ's presence and grace are not limited to His Church. He works, through the Holy Spirit, wherever and however He will. Christians outside the Church most likely (or as far as we know) do have real faith in Christ in some measure, do enjoy real relationship with Him in some measure, and probably are being saved, even though they do not have the full benefits that we have. They are His (everything, after all is His) in some way. Their heresies do hinder them, but do not necessarily render them hopeless.

That all may very well be true. This is just an area I don't like to speculate. I know what is found in the Orthodox Church and I don't spend a lot of time thinking what is beyond it. That's just me.

[Wiffey]

Jeez way to narc lol


If I was paranoid, I'd think that I'm turning into such a flaming heretic that they've set spies on me to inform...

[Maximus]

It seems to me that the great danger of our age is not an excess of rigor.

It is an excess of sentiment.

We live in an age of democratic pluralism, of the "rights and dignity of man."

We are accustomed to accepting everyone on his own terms.

That is our great danger.

We argue that all others who profess Christ, regardless of what they actually believe, must somehow be members of the Body of Christ.

Why?

Because Scripture or the Fathers tell us that they are?

No; we say that because we know and like some of them, and we cannot imagine that they are not members of the Body of Christ, regardless of what the Church has always taught or what the Savior actually said.

We make such judgments based on sentiment, friends.

What is to stop us from making similar judgments about non-Christians?

We all know some of them. Are there not examples of kindness and moral uprightness among them, too, as among Christians?

What of Gandhi?

Some are already making such judgments and including non-Christians in "the plan of salvation" and praising their religions for the elements of "truth" they are said to possess.

One gets the picture that very soon it will be claimed that non-Christians, too, are somehow, in some "mystical" way known only to God, members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

It's a slippery slope, friends, that leads to the Great Apostasy and the coming one world religion of Antichrist.

I am NOT saying that no professing Christians outside the visible Church will somehow be found to to have been in the Church all along. I suspect that some will.

But I have no right to say that they absolutely will, either. That is up to God.

Once we start holding hands with the heterodox and proclaiming that they, too, despite their very serious errors, are members of the Body of Christ, we have begun to trespass against the Deposit of Faith and to betray the Lord.

We have taken our first step into the darkness that will come close to deceiving the very elect.

[countrymousenc]

We make such judgments based on sentiment, friends.

What is to stop us from making similar judgments about non-Christians?

We all know some of them. Are there not examples of kindness and moral uprightness among them, too, as among Christians?

What of Gandhi?

Some are already making such judgments and including non-Christians in "the plan of salvation" and praising their religions for the elements of "truth" they are said to possess.

I understand your objection. Here's the thing, though. Many of us who have converted from other churches believe in some kind of prevenient grace because our own experiences convince us that this is the grace that was at work in our lives to bring us to Orthodoxy. There is also historical precedence in the Church itself for recognizing that the Holy Spirit has been at work in all times and in all places, even through people whose knowledge was minimal when compared to God's special revelation to His people (Aristotle and others come to mind) preparing the way for the gospel. The gospel that I knew before entering the Church was incomplete, I'll grant you that, but Christ was real to me in a way that I cannot account for except to say that He was at work in my life, and many Protestants, Catholics, evangelicals, etc. can truthfully say the same thing. Was I in the Church already? I tend to think not. Just as Israel departed from Judah and thus lost most of their covenantal privileges, the churches outside Orthodoxy are on the outside of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. However, God continued to raise up prophets in Israel in spite of that, and did not abandon them. I realize this is my own personal speculation, but it would appear that there is solid Biblical precedence for believing that God is at work among the heterodox as well as among us. It goes beyond mere sentiment, then, into the realm of observation.

What of Ghandi? He could not have been in the body of Christ, not having faith in Christ. And even faith is not adequate by itself, either. That doesn't seem to keep God from working where He will. He even called Cyrus the Persian "My anointed one," and ministered to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel, and disciplined him, bringing the king of the neo-Babylonian empire to faith the the one true God.

I don't believe that Muslims "worship, together with us, the one true God." That smacks to me of creating a "Taslan," a false, conglomerate, syncretistic deity. But I am open to the possibility that, even so, there are Muslims who are being saved in spite of knowing very little of the truth. Even Abraham knew very little compared to you and me. If they at least know to love their neighbors as themselves and treat others as they wish to be treated - what is salvation except simply to learn to truly love? But it is the most difficult skill to acquire.

[Marjorie]

I understand your objection. Here's the thing, though. Many of us who have converted from other churches believe in some kind of prevenient grace because our own experiences convince us that this is the grace that was at work in our lives to bring us to Orthodoxy.

Yes, but this could also apply to non-Christians. Not all of us come only from Christian backgrounds-- and I see just as much grace in Judaism and Hinduism as I see in many non-Orthodox churches. The Church is a living communion, not just the correct belief system. There is grace everywhere-- the Spirit blows where it wills-- but the Body of Christ exists in communion, not semblance of belief.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Maximus]

The Holy Spirit may be at work in the lives of all kinds of people, Christian and non-Christian, but as long as they have not fully responded to His promptings, as long as they are still adhering to and proclaiming their errors, we have no business jumping the gun and prematurely including them in the Church. That kind of thing is done to win the praises of men, really, not to please God.

The fact that the Lord uses pagans and heretics - and everyone - to work His will does not mean that they know it or consent to it, or that the exercise of God's sovereignty obligates Him to save its objects, even when they have rejected Him.

what is salvation except simply to learn to truly love?

That sounds profound. Properly explained and interpreted, I guess it is correct.

But it sure sounds like one of those warm, fuzzy slogans one might see on the sign outside an Episcopal Church, the kind of slogan used to justify just about anything.

I mean no offense. I realize it was not meant that way here.

What did the Savior say about love?

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

It's interesting that love is associated with doing what the Lord said to do, and that is then associated with the Spirit of truth.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

[NewToLife]

Maximus, if not for the rep police I would have repped you twice in this thread at this point :(.

[Dust and Ashes]

I once heard a quote but can't remember who it is attributed to:

"The secret to effortless salvation is to judge no one."

Of course we know that's not effortless as we are constantly judging others and it would take tremendous effort to achieve that lack of judgement, but I thought it was a profound concept.

[countrymousenc]

That sounds profound. Properly explained and interpreted, I guess it is correct.

But it sure sounds like one of those warm, fuzzy slogans one might see on the sign outside an Episcopal Church, the kind of slogan used to justify just about anything.

I mean no offense. I realize it was not meant that way here.

No offense taken. :) I realize what I wrote can sound warm and fuzzy, and the English word "love" is most often used that way, unfortunately. Perhaps "charity" is more fitting, but then the modern connotation of that is so narrow. Lewis had it right in suspecting that the devil has been hard at work to turn our language into mush.

If you folks will endure another paragraph or two. :)

The reason I wrestle with this is because I feel a need to know how to relate to other Christians (since three of them live in my own household and many of them are dear friends) so as not to cause undue offense but also not to misinform them. My husband, especially, has a hard time with my conversion even though he graciously went along with it because he loves me. He has, unfortunately, read several articles on Orthodox websites and has misunderstood. We tend not to realize (after a while, at least) that when folks with a Protestant or evangelical mindset read articles written from an Orthodox mindset, a lot of miscommunication can take place. I need to help him understand what he's misunderstood, if possible, but I surely do not want to muddy up the truth.

What makes sense to me is that the Church has visible limits (here on earth; we do not know, beyond the saints, all who wait in Paradise), and that the Church and the body of Christ would be one and the same. Therefore, even though God's grace is at work everywhere, and Christians outside the Church do have faith in some measure, like the separated tribes of Israel long ago, they do not have the full benefits of the Covenant. And, if they are in danger because of their heresies, surely we need to pray for them and be prepared and willing to share with them, by way of information and brotherly love, what we can of the treasures we enjoy.

[Maximus]

That was a very good explanation, countrymousenc.

I wrestle with the same thing.

'Tain't easy.

[Rising_Suns]

What of Gandhi?

Some are already making such judgments and including non-Christians in "the plan of salvation" and praising their religions for the elements of "truth" they are said to possess..

...like the sort of sappy ecumenism that says things like, "the plan of salvation includes . . . the Muslims"?


Hi Maximus,
Forgive me for intruding, but I just wanted to make a small point of clarification. Regarding your reference to the Catechism, which states that God's plan of salvation includes the Muslims as well, it is important just to clarify this statement, as you seem to be misunderstanding it; all of mankind is included in God's plan of salvation, whether you're Catholic, Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, pagan, or athiest. God desires to draw the world to Him, not simply a small select minority, as I'm sure you can agree with that. So there is no error in saying that God's plan of salvatin includes the Muslims, because it does, just as it includes the rest of the world.

You have continued to ride on this idea that the Catholic Church posesses this, as you call, "sappy" - "I'm ok you're ok" mindset towards ecumenism, which is not true. True ecumenism in the Catholic Church is ultimately drawing the world back to where we believe the fullness of truth is, but doing so in love; reaching out to our separated brethren in compassion and charity with the ultimate goal of bringing them back to the Church.

I hope that you can understand this.

Again, please forgive me for intruding.

Blessings,

-Davide

[Eusebios]

oops, duplicate post, see below:)

[Eusebios]

[mod hat on] Just a reminder to all non-Orthodox posters:
You may feel free to post fellowship posts or to ask honest questions, debate is not allowed and will not be tolerated.[/hat]

[Maximus]

Hi Maximus,
Forgive me for intruding, but I just wanted to make a small point of clarification. Regarding your reference to the Catechism, which states that God's plan of salvation includes the Muslims as well, it is important just to clarify this statement, as you seem to be misunderstanding it; all of mankind is included in God's plan of salvation, whether you're Catholic, Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, pagan, or athiest. God desires to draw the world to Him, not simply a small select minority, as I'm sure you can agree with that. So there is no error in saying that God's plan of salvatin includes the Muslims, because it does, just as it includes the rest of the world.

You have continued to ride on this idea that the Catholic Church posesses this, as you call, "sappy" - "I'm ok you're ok" mindset towards ecumenism, which is not true. True ecumenism in the Catholic Church is ultimately drawing the world back to where we believe the fullness of truth is, but doing so in love; reaching out to our separated brethren in compassion and charity with the ultimate goal of bringing them back to the Church.

I hope that you can understand this.

Again, please forgive me for intruding.

Blessings,

-Davide

I've heard that explanation before, but it doesn't make sense.

Why make a special point to declare that "the plan of salvation includes . . . Muslims," if what is really meant is that it includes them only in the sense of 1 Tim. 2:4, i.e., that God would have all men be saved?

It's the same sort of liberal, modernist, ecumenical double-speak employed by Vatican II in its Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, which says "Upon the Moslems, too, the Church looks with esteem" (The Documents of Vatican II; New York: Guild Press, 1966; p. 663).

Anyone who has read that and has seen the accounts of the shameful proceedings at Assisi I and II cannot fail to see that what the Latin Church is now engaged in contradicts much that was taught by past popes, some of whom were saints.

Of course, I am aware that not all Latins share such liberal, indifferentist sentiments.

You have continued to ride on this idea that the Catholic Church posesses this, as you call, "sappy" - "I'm ok you're ok" mindset towards ecumenism, which is not true.

Hmmm . . . what would make anyone think the Roman Church is involved in sappy ecumenism?

Could it be the spectacle of a pope kissing the antichrist "holy book" of the Muslims in public in 1999?

Or Cardinal Law bowing to the floor and praying with Muslims inside a mosque in 2002?

Or the two feel-good, syncretist love-ins with the pagans at Assisi in 1986 and 2002?

Or the papal prayer meeting with the Animists in Togo in 1985?

I've left out a lot of other things I could mention, but I wouldn't want you to think I was "riding" the idea that the Roman Church is involved in sappy ecumenism.

[countrymousenc]

Ymssrabgitma :)

[Rising_Suns]

Why make a special point to declare that "the plan of salvation includes . . . Muslims," if what is really meant is that it includes them only in the sense of 1 Tim. 2:4, i.e., that God would have all men be saved?

Think about it Maximus. What is the best approach to witness to a muslim? By telling him he is evil and will burn in hell, or by first finding the seeds of truth in islam and building on them to ultimately lead them back to the truth?

Remember when Paul visited Athens and saw all the idols that the people were worshipping? What did he say after they mocked him? Did he snub them? Did he go around telling them that their religion is evil and that they are condemned to hell?

"While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the Godfearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. " [Acts 17:22]

Paul's approach is exactly in line with the Church's approach today; he saw that every religion--even those with false idols--are in search of truth and contain some element of truth within them, and he focussed on this and what united them, and built his speech from this persepctive to bring the good new to them.


What of Gandhi?

I would hope that you would have a little more faith in the mercy of Christ and not be so inclined to condemn the rest of the world to hell.

What about the recent Tsunami's that killed 150,000+ people? Can you honestly look within and tell yourself that an all loving and merciful God would condemn all (even, most, or half) to hell just because they are not Orthodox?

What about when Communist China invaded Tibet and killed 1 million Tibentian monks and destroyed over 6,000 monasteries. Do all these monks go to hell too because they are not Orthodox?

Is the mercy of Christ really that weak?

There is a great risk of falling into the common Protestant elitist mindset, that, one must say the "sinners prayer" in order to be saved. And if you haven't--even if you have never heard the gospel before--then your out of luck and are doomed to hell. This is a heartless mindset, and something I can never accept.
.
.
.
Frogive me. I must bow out of this thread now.

-Davide

[Oblio]

What about the recent Tsunami's that killed 150,000+ people? Can you honestly look within and tell yourself that an all loving and merciful God would condemn all (even, most, or half) to hell just because they are not Orthodox?

What about when Communist China invaded Tibet and killed 1 million Tibentian monks and destroyed over 6,000 monasteries. Do all these monks go to hell too because they are not Orthodox?


This is a house built of straw, and ...

/me puts on mod hat

I would advise against you proffering a debate.

/me removes hat

[Marjorie]

Davide, no one here has said that only Orthodox are saved, and I dare say that no one here believes that. Most of us here, from my experience, even tend towards Bp. +Kallistos Ware's statement that we must pray that ALL shall be saved.

The question is a matter of misunderstanding-- some here are saying that Catholics are outside the Body of Christ, but no one here has said that grace does not exist outside the Body of Christ.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Rilian]

I just re-read Maximus' posts and I didn't see anywhere him saying non-Orthodox cannot be saved. What I read is that you cannot start with the supposition that they will.

I also remember reading in the past Catholic theologians and Popes who were actually quite explicit - if you're outside of the church, you're going to Hell. It seems like something significantly changed at V2.

[countrymousenc]

I just re-read Maximus' posts and I didn't see anywhere him saying non-Orthodox cannot be saved. What I read is that you cannot start with the supposition that they will.

I also remember reading in the past Catholic theologians and Popes who were actually quite explicit - if you're outside of the church, you're going to Hell. It seems like something significantly changed at V2.

I recall reading the same thing, Rilian, and yes, things did significantly change with Vatican II. Here is one of the statements from V II regarding relations with the Muslims:

http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/nostra.aet

DECLARATION
ON THE RELATION OF THE
CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN
RELIGIONS

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the
one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful,
the Creator of heaven and earth (5), who has spoken to men; they take
pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as
Abraham, ( :eek: ) with whom the faith of Islam takes great pleasure in linking
itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as
God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin
mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition,
they await the day of judgement when God will render their deserts to
all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value
the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving
and fasting.

This, in spite of the fact that the Muslim god, Allah, is a monad, not a trinity, and that they deny Christ's deity. Moreover, they proclaim that God continued the Covenant that He made with Abraham through Ishmael, not Isaac. They do not trust in Christ for their salvation. How can these things be said by a church that believes itself to be apostolic?

We are all going to be held responsible for the measure of truth we've been given. Muslims (and Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) who knew no better will not likely be condemned for lacking knowledge; they'll be judged according to what they've done with what they've had, and probably many of them will enter the kingdom on the day of judgment, and some Christians will not. That does not mean that here and now they worship the one true God. They do not.

[Rising_Suns]

countrymousenc,
This has been previously discussed in OBOB. You are most welcomed to bring your concerns there if you would like them properly addressed. I have already overstepped my bounds here and do not want to upset anyone else.

I would just advise you to read the entire paragraph again, within the broader context that salvation is ultimately through Christ alone. It looks to be that you are reading too much in to what you were looking to find, instead of just what's written. This particular paragraph is simply dedicated to bringing to light the small seeds of truth in Islam, which there clearly are.

Blessings,

-Davide

[Maximus]

Think about it Maximus. What is the best approach to witness to a muslim? By telling him he is evil and will burn in hell, or by first finding the seeds of truth in islam and building on them to ultimately lead them back to the truth?

Are there only two alternatives?

1. Tell them they're evil and will burn in hell (the one closest to the truth) or 2. that they're in the plan of salvation, worship the same God we do, and have our "esteem"?

May I suggest a third alternative?

Tell them the truth as tactfully and lovingly as we know how.

That truth: unless they repent, abandon their antichrist religion, and turn to Christ, they are without hope.

Remember when Paul visited Athens and saw all the idols that the people were worshipping? What did he say after they mocked him? Did he snub them? Did he go around telling them that their religion is evil and that they are condemned to hell?

"While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the Godfearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. " [Acts 17:22]

Which Bible translation are you using?

Here is what St. Paul actually said:

Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

St. Paul came to tell the Athenians about the God who was really unknown to them: the one, true God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Paul's approach is exactly in line with the Church's approach today; he saw that every religion--even those with false idols--are in search of truth and contain some element of truth within them, and he focussed on this and what united them, and built his speech from this persepctive to bring the good new to them.

Read Acts 17 again. St. Paul neither did nor said anything of the kind; he did nothing that even remotely resembles modern ecumenism. In fact, Chapter 17 concludes with the mention of conversions. Who has ever heard of any of those occurring as a result of modern ecumenism?

Why convert when you're already worshipping God and in the plan of salvation?

What else did St. Paul say to the Athenians (after calling them superstitious and ignorant)?

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Were the pagans told anything like that at Assisi I and II?

Were they told to repent because of the coming day of judgment?

Is anyone ever told that at an ecumenical gathering?

Are they not rather feel-good festivals that anyone can leave feeling confirmed in his errors?

I would hope that you would have a little more faith in the mercy of Christ and not be so inclined to condemn the rest of the world to hell.

I condemn no one.

At the same time, I do not feel it is my place to proclaim salvation to those who not only do not know Christ but reject Him.

We can only tell people what we know to be true: repent, believe the Gospel, and be baptized.

What about the recent Tsunami's that killed 150,000+ people? Can you honestly look within and tell yourself that an all loving and merciful God would condemn all (even, most, or half) to hell just because they are not Orthodox?

Do you really believe that God condemns people simply because "they are not Orthodox"?

I do not know what God did with all of those people.

I do know that He dealt justly with them.

If some or even all of them were condemned, it was because of their own sins.

Did we do our best to reach them for Christ before they perished?

Or did we - desiring the praises of men more than the praises of God - fill them full of ecumenical blather?

What about when Communist China invaded Tibet and killed 1 million Tibentian monks and destroyed over 6,000 monasteries. Do all these monks go to hell too because they are not Orthodox?

If they went to hell, they did so for their own sins.

Did anyone tell them about Christ before they died?

Or did we simply give them a free olive tree and blow smoke up their tails about "peace"?

Is the mercy of Christ really that weak?

Are you preaching universalism?

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

We have no right to lie to people and tell them to expect the mercy of Christ where He Himself has not said to expect it.

Our Lord told us how His mercy is obtained. That is as far as we should go.

There is a great risk of falling into the common Protestant elitist mindset, that, one must say the "sinners prayer" in order to be saved. And if you haven't--even if you have never heard the gospel before--then your out of luck and are doomed to hell. This is a heartless mindset, and something I can never accept.
.
.
.
Frogive me. I must bow out of this thread now.

-Davide

Protestants began the ecumenical movement, and they remain its chief proponents.

Our Lord and His Apostles have told us that only those who come to the Father through Him will be saved.

That is all we proclaim, all we have a right to proclaim.

Whether or not God will save non-Christians in some mysterious way known only to Him, I do not know.

He has not said that He will, and I have no right to speculate that He will.

I certainly have no right to deceive others by giving them assurances where there are certainly none to be had.

Better to do as St. Paul did and warn them to repent because of the coming day of judgment.

It really seems heartless to me to do otherwise.

If you believe what you like in the Gospel and reject what you do not like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself. (St. Augustine, quoted in Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers, p.31).

[Marjorie]

I tend to agree with Rising_Suns here; Acts 17 is one of my favorite passages and I think it beautifully shows the Church's attempt to show Christ as not a "new" religion but the fulfillment of all religions, pagan, Jewish, and, now, Muslim... which is really (IMO) nothing more than a heretical branch of Christianity.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Rising_Suns]

May I suggest a third alternative?

Tell them the truth as tactfully and lovingly as we know how.

That truth: unless they repent, abandon their antichrist religion, and turn to Christ, they are without hope.

But Maximus, this is what I am saying; where I believe you go wrong in your perception. Moslems are not anti-Christ; they do not hate Christ. Quite the contrary; they revere and highly admire Him as a great prophet. They are only one step away from acceptance of their savior. Furthermore they honor and venerate Mary as well. Not even Protestants do this.

By lumping Moslems into the same pile as TRUE anti-Christ sects such as pagans and athiests--who are set at taking the world away from Christ-- you are making a faulty generalization that will only have negative consequences.

Which Bible translation are you using?

Here is what St. Paul actually said:

Maximus,
This is peculiar. I'm not quite sure what translation you are using, but I checked all the modern translations--such as the NAB, NASB, NIV, KJV, etc.--and they all correspond to the wording in the passage I posted above. Which translation did you get this from? It doesn't seem to match any other translation I looked up. I'd really would like to know as a reference for the future, so I know to stay away from it.



I condemn no one.

At the same time, I do not feel it is my place to proclaim salvation to those who not only do not know Christ but reject Him.

Neither does the Church.


We can only tell people what we know to be true: repent, believe the Gospel, and be baptized.

Agreed.

Are you preaching universalism?

As we've said in OBOB many times, no. But we should hope and pray that all souls will be saved (if I recall correctly, you had a gripe with this idea?).

Protestants began the ecumenical movement, and they remain its chief proponents.

Believe it or not, Maximus, Protestants can do some things right too.

Blessings,

-Davide

[Maximus]

But Maximus, this is what I am saying; where I believe you go wrong in your perception. Moslems are not anti-Christ; they do not hate Christ. Quite the contrary; they revere and highly admire Him as a great prophet. They are only one step away from acceptance of their savior. Furthermore they honor and venerate Mary as well. Not even Protestants do this.

No, that is where you are wrong.

Muslims deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Divine Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

1John 2:22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son.

Read the older, pre-modernist works of your own Church, which refer to Muslims as infidels and to Mohammed as the False Prophet.

Read St. John Damascene, who refers to Mohammed as the "forerunner to Antichrist" and "a false prophet" (On Heresies, Chapter 101).

How can anyone "honor and venerate Mary" who denies the deity of her Son?

Who can "honor and venerate Mary" with so much of the blood of His servants and friends on their hands?

Excuse me, but such ludicrous apologies for the devil-inspired false religion of the Muslims make me want to puke.

By lumping Moslems into the same pile as TRUE anti-Christ sects such as pagans and athiests--who are set at taking the world away from Christ-- you are making a faulty generalization that will only have negative consequences.

Muslims are not trying to take the world away from Christ?

How can you defend that false religion, drunk as it is with the blood of countless Christian martyrs?

Wake up!

Maximus,
This is peculiar. I'm not quite sure what translation you are using, but I checked all the modern translations--such as the NAB, NASB, NIV, KJV, etc.--and they all correspond to the wording in the passage I posted above. Which translation did you get this from? It doesn't seem to match any other translation I looked up. I'd really would like to know as a reference for the future, so I know to stay away from it.

I quoted the KJV with Deuterocanon, which accurately translates the Greek word deisidaimonesteros in Acts 17:22 as superstitious, as does the Douay-Rheims. The RSV and other modern, equivocating translations render it as religious.

There are a number of problems with modern translations like the RSV. If you wish, I can point them out to you.

As we've said in OBOB many times, no. But we should hope and pray that all souls will be saved (if I recall correctly, you had a gripe with this idea?).

No, you do not recall correctly.

I pray that all people will be saved. That is what God desires, too (1 Tim. 2:4).

But they will be saved only by coming to God through His Son Jesus Christ.

Believe it or not, Maximus, Protestants can do some things right too.

Blessings,

-Davide

You were the one who mentioned Protestants in a negative light in an attempt to somehow associate what I believe with their errors.

I merely pointed out that it was Protestants who began the modern ecumenical movement, and liberal Protestants remain its chief proponents. They are the ones who have been used by the devil to infect the post-Vatican II Roman Church with the ecumenical virus.

Protestants who actually still believe in God - Evangelicals and Fundamentalists - will not touch ecumenism with a ten foot pole.

[xenia]

[MOD HAT]

Ok folks, this is debating. Catholic guests, please do not debate in TAW, even if you are debating in a low-key, gentlemanly manner. :)

[/MOD HAT]

[countrymousenc]

countrymousenc,
This has been previously discussed in OBOB. You are most welcomed to bring your concerns there if you would like them properly addressed. I have already overstepped my bounds here and do not want to upset anyone else.

I would just advise you to read the entire paragraph again, within the broader context that salvation is ultimately through Christ alone. It looks to be that you are reading too much in to what you were looking to find, instead of just what's written. This particular paragraph is simply dedicated to bringing to light the small seeds of truth in Islam, which there clearly are.

Blessings,

-Davide

Hi Davide, and I appreciate your response. I do recognize that there are seeds of truth in Islam, just as in most religions (I would tend to disqualify Satanism), and I do appreciate the broader context of the paragraph, which I did read in its entirety, and this marks several times. However, I don't think I'm reading anything into it that isn't there, even though I'd like very much to find out that I'm wrong. The broader context does not do anything, as far as I can tell, to change the fact that the paragraph presents the God of Islam and the God of the Christian Faith as the same God. Allow me to come at this from the perspective of a teacher of reading comprehension. (M.Ed. 1996)

Paragraph structure - subject of paragraph: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.

Supporting sentences:
1. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as
Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes great pleasure in linking
itself, submitted to God.

2. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as
God, they revere Him as a prophet.

3. They also honor Mary, His virgin mother; at times they even call on her with devotion.

4. In addition, they await the day of judgement when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead.

5. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Even with careful analysis, I do not see how I missed the point.

That salvation is ultimately through Christ alone does not change the fact that Islam does not teach salvation through Christ, and denies His deity, Lordship, and resurrection. The Holy Scriptures themselves teach that those who do not honor the Son do not honor the Father. We might argue that it is good that Islam honors Jesus as a great Prophet. I think, however, that to claim to honor someone as a prophet, but to simultaneously disbelieve at least half of what He said, is to give empty lipservice.

[Maximus]

They are only one step away from acceptance of their savior.

Today's trivia question: Under Islamic Law, what is the penalty for a Muslim who converts to Christianity?

Answer: DEATH!

[Xpycoctomos]

There were a lot of good points brought up here by Countrymouse (as always :) ), Maximus, Rising Suns and others. It has truly been an interesting thread to read through and look at the subject from different points of view.

I think I have at times been thought too "ecumenical" in regards to our separated brethern of the West (namely Vatican Catholics) by many TAWers and not ecuminical enough by OBOBers. With that said, take from my comments what you will.

In talking with many serious Roman Catholics (and there are many of whom I feel that their number is increasing), I do not get the feeling that they in any way compromise the Word of Truth (that being that the Trinity is the one true God and the Church is where Truth is found it its fullest) or misunderstand the mission Christ laid down for us before His ascension. On the other hand, while I do not claim to be a Vatican expert, the Catholic Church has been playing what SEEMS to be a dangerous PR game. The intentions are perhaps righteous: create an ambience of peace and love, and good things will follow. But in the meantime, the Vatican is making and writing very ambigious statements regarding Islam, many which, if you ask me, deserve harsh specualtion if not criticism and condemnation from Her followers. Some OBOBers have done so in the past.

So as not to seem biased in my own criticisms, we (Orthodox) should be made well aware that our leadership is not free from ecumenical ambiguity in regards to non-Christians (namely the muslims). The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew* participates yearly in conferences regarding Peace and Tolerance among Christians, Muslims and Jews. Some of his statements are not shining examples of that middle ground between unloving condemnation and compromising the faith for the sake of peace Maximus was referring to. They may not be as shocking and sad as when PJPII (who I love and pray for often) kissed the Koran, but this in no way exempts us from similar criticism.

While I have read other statements by His-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew that have made me feel much more uneasy than the following, I haven't been able to find them tonight (since I usually run across them on accident). I do, however, have this statement which seems representative of many other statements he has made which could lead others to believe he is over-stepping his bounds as Primus inter Pares*:

Speaking to Muslims and Jewish people:

Beloved brethren, as a community of faith, there is more that unites us than that which divides us. Today, fear is giving way to hope, and our worst pockets of despair have become our greatest sources of inspiration. Let this Conference mark yet another turning point in this age of miracles. We have within our grasp the vision of the Psalmist: "Behold, how good and how pleased it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" We pledge to you today that the Orthodox Christian Church will do everything in her power to fulfill that vision. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace and goodwill toward men."

Extending a hand of peace out to fellow humans (especially in area of the world where religious violence is not uncommon) is not only beautiful, but necessary... but those first few bolded words make me uneasy and there are all kinds of quotes like thsi if you look around.

Now, it is true that we could certainly and very easily find unequivocable statements by this and other Patriarchs proclaiming the Orthodox Faith as the One True Faith revealed to us by the one, true God, the Trinity Three in One leaving no doubt in the mind of the listener or reader as to the sanctity and uniqueness of the Church. And in this I find a strong sense of relief and hope that the Gates of Hell will not prevail. In the same way, Western Catholics can find many beautiful statements (Post-Vatican II included... "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" by PJPII is a good example of well-balanced statements regarding other faiths) that out-weigh the many oddly ambiguious ecumenical gestures that only strenthened the suspicions of fundmentalist protestants and left other serious friends of Catholics (like myslef) scratching their heads and thinking "wha....?". And I felt the same way the various times I would read things from His-Holiness Patriach Bartholomew. I'm getting redundant so I will shut up now.

God bless and blessed Lent to all of my Catholic friends out there!

John

*So that I don't get stoned by some more zealous Orthodox brethern here, I am well aware that the Ecumenical Patriarch is not THE leader of ALL Orthodox World-wide. But I also recognize the fact that he has traditionally been accepted as the Primus Inter Pares of the Orthodox Church and until such time that Moscow and Constantinople iron out their political hangups and differences, I will continue to afford the Patriarch of Constantinople the title of Ecumenical Patriarch and Primus Inter Pares he has recieved for countless generations.

[Rising_Suns]

Brethren,
I must go now, before I overstep my bounds any further. I can tell you all that you are most welcomed to bring your concerns over to OBOB if you would like them addressed. This discussion regarding the Church's view of the Moslem's have been discussed in the past in a much broader sense, and is not limited to the one paragraph that has been brought up here.

Blessings,

-Davide

[Xpycoctomos]

Brethren,
I must go now, before I overstep my bounds any further. I can tell you all that you are most welcomed to bring your concerns over to OBOB if you would like them addressed. This discussion regarding the Church's view of the Moslem's have been discussed in the past in a much broader sense, and is not limited to the one paragraph that has been brought up here.

Blessings,

-Davide

Thank you for your gesture of goodwill here. So that you know that I am not speaking in complete ignorance, I have read some of those threads in OBOB (although I am sure not all) and was even involved in one of them. (It got me into a bit of trouble for criticims... although they were first and most oftened voiced by other OBOBers).

I look forward to your future participation here and even if you may have overstepped your bounds here (perhaps, I guess), it was done in a very cordial and respectful manner.

Pax Christi!

John

[Maximus]

Xpycotomos -

I haven't been real thrilled by many of the things the EP and some other Orthodox hierarchs have done and said.

For one thing, I don't think the Orthodox Church should be involved in the WCC or the NCC.

The difference between the EP and JPII, however, is that the EP can be deposed if he steps over the line into heresy.

In Holy Orthodoxy, it is the Church - the entire body of the faithful - and not merely the current hierarchy, that is the guardian of the Faith.

In the Roman Church, however, there is prevalent the view that if the teaching of the current hierarchy - in communion with the Pope - seems to contradict the teaching of past hierarchs and popes, it cannot really, because it is impossible that it should.

According to this teaching, if I or any other Christian think the current magisterium is contradicting past magisteriums, we must be wrong, lacking discernment, etc., no matter how glaring or obvious the contradiction might appear.

I even got a pm from one Latin here who told me that if it could be proven that the current magisterium had erred or contradicted a past one, he would become an atheist! :scratch:

If such is the true doctrine of the Church, one wonders what St. Paul meant when he admonished the Galatians:

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

St. Paul warned the Galatians against anyone, even the very Apostles themselves ("we"), who would come preaching another message than the one they had already received.

Evidently he believed the Galatians would be able to tell the difference.

If the current view of some in the Roman Church is correct, however, one wonders why St. Paul didn't say something like this:

"Just listen to us, no matter what we say. We're always right."

It reminds me of the title of an anthology of Solzhenitsyn's short stories:

We Never Make Mistakes

[xenia]

I even got a pm from one Latin here who told me that if it could be proven that the current magisterium had erred or contradicted a past one, he would become an atheist! :scratch:


This reminds me of fundamentalists who will say that if one contradiction in the Bible can be proven, they will become atheists.

Our faith is in a Person. Even if the entire Bible were proven to be false I would still believe in Jesus. But, here's a word of advice, if I may offer it. When a person's faith is so weak that they can make statements like this, leave them alone. Their faith is hanging by a cherished thread- don't try to snip it. Instead, affirm them in the things that you both know are true and pray for them.

And remember what St. Seraphim said!

[Xpycoctomos]

Xpycotomos -

I haven't been real thrilled by many of the things the EP and some other Orthodox hierarchs have done and said.

For one thing, I don't think the Orthodox Church should be involved in the WCC or the NCC.

The difference between the EP and JPII, however, is that the EP can be deposed if he steps over the line into heresy.

In Holy Orthodoxy, it is the Church - the entire body of the faithful - and not merely the current hierarchy, that is the guardian of the Faith.

In the Roman Church, however, there is prevalent the view that if the teaching of the current hierarchy - in communion with the Pope - seems to contradict the teaching of past hierarchs and popes, it c