Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus…..Outside The Church There Is No Salvation !!!!

[santiagoamr]

It

Would the Catholic theology of "Baptism of Fire" be related to purgatory, by chance?

Just curious.

The Orthodox do believe salvation is possible for those who have not heard the Gospel or in other cases, but we simply leave judgement to God and hope in His mercy. We make no determinations or proclamations concerning the who or the how.

Comes from Tradition and Theology based on Scripture, from Mathew. It is a cleansing which incorporates the non believer in to the Body of Christ. It is also Just since those who have not heard or known about the Revelation, should be able to become the Body of Christ.

I do not believe for a second that God would create a being with Eternal Soul and not give them the same possibility, as those that have been lucky to hear, understand and believe In Christ.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

And where would your premises come from? You must be in a whole new state of Communion with the Holy Spirit then, so as for him to give you special and unique revelation. How would you even trust that revelation? Because you feel it? There is no initial premise.

The Church's tradition, according to the scriptures, ALONE, is more than all Fathers both, that is my premise. Because, there is some theological particularities in each Fathers, that the tradition didn't assumed, for example, Apocatastasis with Gregory of Nyssa, or else..

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

The Fathers of the Church were THE FIRS holders of Scripture and Tradition, without there input there is no Bible, Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic "."

So, you profess Apocatastasis, like Gregory of Nyssa, or Aphartodocetism, like Hilary of Poitiers?...

 

[santiagoamr]

Thank you.

If I ever reach the level of St. Paisios or St. Seraphim, then perhaps I'll raise my expectations to emulate Christ in this. But somehow, I don't think I'll live the many, many, MANY decades that would probably require.

I'm joking, dear brother. But thank you.

Like I said it is very laudable, i myself have lost all patience, and for now I am going through what some call the Dark night of the Soul, so my Faith is 99% intact and has been for these past 5 years since it started, but in a cynical form, specially regarding everything material about the Church, including it's structure, images, Clerics, Rituals and even some of it's creeds, like the Primacy of Peter. I have not gone to Mass in two years nor confessed, but I trust completely in the Mercy of God and obviously his plan and acknowledge that he may want this suffering for me at this time.

One thing though, I have been thinking about converting to one of the Orthodox Churches for a while, but really have not invested time in research. I would not even begin to contemplate becoming a Protestant, nor any other thing, There is to much knowledge and understanding of Truth to even contemplate forgetting about the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession or many other beliefs we Orthodox and Catholics share.

One of the reasons I have not given it time is because there are not may options where I live, so if I ever get out of this "suffering" I would like to receive Communion and Confession. For us Catholics it is permitted to receive them from most Orthodox Churches, it is "interchangeable" since Catholics acknowledge the Apostolic Succession within most Orthodox Churches and also the similarity and in the majority of creeds the equality of them.

 

[mark46]

I am reminded of this view, a view of an Anglican (Wesley).

"the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.

Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God “so far as it is necessary for our salvation.”
======================
I find much of the argument in this thread to be strange. I suspect that much has to do with language. Yes, Reason (logic) is important within theology. However, faith and salvation certainly does not DEPEND on logic or reason. The Truth is what it is. Of course, the Truth is logical. Our understanding or explanation may or may not be logical.

We fumble over different translations of "resurrection" and "logic", and probably also of "salvation".

We are saved by God's Grace though our faith in Christ Jesus. Sometimes we seem to forget that the Church/church IS the body of Christ of which we are all a part.
=======================
Some seem to want Scripture to be our faith. Some seem to choose the Creed. These are pointers to Jesus. Even most of our rituals are pointers to Jesus. Obviously, in some of the critical rituals, we are joined to Jesus.
=======================
Yes, sometimes we go though the Dark Night, the dry time. Scripture is not enough. The Church and its rituals is not enough. They don't satisfy. In those times, we struggle to sometimes understand Scripture and the Church, as if in some way they are the Source. Jesus IS our life. Jesus lives within each of us. Jesus will never forsake us. The Answer is within. And yes, reading experiences of the saints can help.

There is no answer for the Darkness other than allowing the Spirit remove it. Of course, being part of Church community and participating in the liturgy of Church life can help. At very least, we are surrounded by Love and God's own family and Body.
===
I apologize for what may seem like venting. I was simply a bit frustrated by much of the discussion.

 

[santiagoamr]

The Church's tradition, according to the scriptures, ALONE, is more than all Fathers both, that is my premise. Because, there is some theological particularities in each Fathers, that the tradition didn't assumed, for example, Apocatastasis with Gregory of Nyssa, or else..

I apologise, because I did not understand your premise, I believe it is a matter of redaction, since this part seems overly redundant "The Church's tradition, according to the scriptures, ALONE, is more than all Fathers both"

Also if your premise is that there are differences between THEOLOGICAL beliefs of the Fathers (Gregory's and Origenes Apocatastasis differs, and also many errors including some that are Anathema and even heretical) So you conclude that the Fathers teachings are unreliable, thus not valid for Theology... Then you would be committing a fallacy and not only that you would be counter argumenting your stance, since those discrepancies are part of THEOLOGICAL errors and thus your Logic can be easily flawed, like theirs so you are could be deepening the discrepancies and errors, now with yours. Tradition has not changed, and Creed hasn't either it has jut widened and evolved, but the bases are the same, flawed Theology has always existed and has not ended, that is why you can not rely on your Logic. Of course this is if I understood what you meant by your premise.

Also Your premise already may have a flawed premise in it. "The Church's tradition, according to the scriptures, ALONE" This is contradictory, since Tradition is what is not in the Scriptures, even if Scriptures Acknowledges Tradition it does not say what that Tradition is, because then it is Scripture.

So, you profess Apocatastasis, like Gregory of Nyssa, or Aphartodocetism, like Hilary of Poitiers?...

This is why you can not put Logic above Tradition or Scripture which is What the Fathers of the Church Held, Theology was theirs and also from Inspiration but not Revelation, they did not hold it, it was not passed to them. No I do not support Aphartodocetism, to me that is Heressy, but i do lean with Gregory's view on Apocatastasis, but not Origenes, although I would not put it as a Creed, since it is not certainty, is it Theology and can be flawed and there are to many unknowns to make any certain conclusion, there is no way to do it since you would lack premises, one can only hope and trust in God's Mercy.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Also Your premise already may have a flawed premise in it. "The Church's tradition, according to the scriptures, ALONE" This is contradictory, since Tradition is what is not in the Scriptures, even if Scriptures Acknowledges Tradition it does not say what that Tradition is, because then it is Scripture.

If you confuse tradition and scriptures, you fall under the curse of II Thes.2. Indeed, tradition is not scriptures, but it is the faith exude from scriptures. If scriptures don't rule tradition, this is nothing else but Gnosticism, if you deny any tradition, this is not scripturality, but Qur'anism...
This is only one kind of contradiction with scriptures: Satan, "dial/bolos"...

 

[topcare]

Very funny...
But, this sentence was a response to an answer. I didn't mean that I despised Fathers, my name said the contrary. No, in fact, inside theology, we must be logic, with the matter, before going to quote Fathers. That's the meaning of this incriminated sentence. Since I 'm here, in this forum, unfortunately, I didn't learn only English...

Then respectfully you may want to since this is an English language forum. Further this is the Traditional Theology sub forum where debate is not allowed nor is calling someone a liar either. We are hear to learn and Scripture alone is not Traditional Faith.

Per the mods instruction:

It was and still remains the desire of everyone involved in the formation of this forum that it be, as the Statement of Purpose says, first and foremost A forum dedicated to respectful discussion, and furthermore the focus of this forum is the discussion of traditional historic theological belief, thought and practice.

While everyone is welcome to participate in these discussions, this forum is NOT a place to refute these things, but a place to discuss, question and increase knowledge and understanding in these things in an atmosphere of Christian Fellowship.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/welcome-to-traditional-theology.7859728/

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Then respectfully you may want to since this is an English language forum. Further this is the Traditional Theology sub forum where debate is not allowed nor is calling someone a liar either. We are hear to learn and Scripture alone is not Traditional Faith.

I never call anyone liar. This is a false accusation. Indeed, this is an English language forum. I made wrong to go here. You don't merit any French scholarship presence with you. So, I leave this forum for ever, because I don't want to waste my time with a pseudo-civilisation, which failed...

 

[~Anastasia~]

I never call anyone liar. This is a false accusation. Indeed, this is an English language forum. I made wrong to go here. You don't merit any French scholarship presence with you. So, I leave this forum for ever, because I don't want to waste my time with a pseudo-civilisation, which failed...

I regret that I seem to be the cause of this. I'm not sure it is repairable.

To be fair, Gregoire de Nazianze, you did say

Quote all my writings, if you want, but don't try to discredit me by lying...

Forgive me, but typically saying that a person is lying ... is accusing them of being a liar. I asked your forgiveness for my surprised comment, which resulted in this reply. I do not know if if I have your forgiveness, but I am sorry. And I could have said that better. I do apologize.

As to the rest, if that is truly your sentiment - well, we do ask for civil and respectful discussion. Because English is not your primary language, I am in favor of excusing statements and putting them down to problems of language rather than ill will, which I don't believe you have toward us.

Our community is not about a national civilization, as we have members from all over the world.

But if a person truly felt the other posters beneath him and unworthy of his presence and discussion, I am unsure whether it is possible to carry on discussion with the required respectfulness and civility. I suppose you would have to consider that yourself.

Some of the discussion appeared to be entering interesting territory though, and could have been fruitful. And I am always sad to see people feel it necessary to leave.

God be with you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It

Comes from Tradition and Theology based on Scripture, from Mathew. It is a cleansing which incorporates the non believer in to the Body of Christ. It is also Just since those who have not heard or known about the Revelation, should be able to become the Body of Christ.

I do not believe for a second that God would create a being with Eternal Soul and not give them the same possibility, as those that have been lucky to hear, understand and believe In Christ.

Thank you for the reply. I was not familiar with that teaching of the Catholic Church.

As I said, we as Orthodox believe also that God can have mercy on whoever He wills. There are also instances where baptism into the Church is not necessary, obviously. In some instances we explain them somewhat (baptism of desire, baptism by blood) but we don't explain all or the details.

More importantly, I do agree with you that God would not create a soul and block them from any chance of salvation, and then eternally condemn them for it.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[santiagoamr]

If you confuse tradition and scriptures, you fall under the curse of II Thes.2. Indeed, tradition is not scriptures, but it is the faith exude from scriptures. If scriptures don't rule tradition, this is nothing else but Gnosticism, if you deny any tradition, this is not scripturality, but Qur'anism...
This is only one kind of contradiction with scriptures: Satan, "dial/bolos"...

Tradition is what is not contained in Scripture but it is the sacred Word of God. You are falling miserably not only on an illogical paradox, but also on a Theological error. It is simple and I have already expressed it twice in this forum, without Tradition there is no Bible, there is no way to know what is Sacred Scripture and what is not. The Canon is born from Tradition, not the other way around. You can not rely on a text to tell you that it is sacred, and should be held that way, what tells you that the Bible is the Word of God, is Tradition, not Scripture. So no, Scripture can not and should not rule Tradition, it simply makes a redunt and illogical argument, and God is not illogical or redundant. The Word of God is a Living Word not simple text and I am not talking about exegeses, but about Will. Both have the same Divine Revelation, but what does depend to determine what is the Word of God on Tradition IS Scripture. I do not deny any Tradition, but can differentiate between Scripture and Tradition.

But still you have not solved the errors in your premise even with this last illogical argument you gave.

 

[topcare]

I never call anyone liar. This is a false accusation. Indeed, this is an English language forum. I made wrong to go here. You don't merit any French scholarship presence with you. So, I leave this forum for ever, because I don't want to waste my time with a pseudo-civilisation, which failed...

You called a member here a liar do not make the mistake as assuming we are stupid. When you say someone is lying you are calling them a liar.

------------

Vous avez appelé un membre ici un menteur ne faites pas l'erreur comme assumant nous sommes stupides . Quand vous dites que quelqu'un vous mentait sont les appelant un menteur

 

[santiagoamr]

Thank you for the reply. I was not familiar with that teaching of the Catholic Church.

As I said, we as Orthodox believe also that God can have mercy on whoever He wills. There are also instances where baptism into the Church is not necessary, obviously. In some instances we explain them somewhat (baptism of desire, baptism by blood) but we don't explain all or the details.

More importantly, I do agree with you that God would not create a soul and block them from any chance of salvation, and then eternally condemn them for it.

Thank you for the reply.

We also call it Baptism of Desire as well.

 

[santiagoamr]

I am reminded of this view, a view of an Anglican (Wesley).

"the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.

Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God “so far as it is necessary for our salvation.”
======================
I find much of the argument in this thread to be strange. I suspect that much has to do with language. Yes, Reason (logic) is important within theology. However, faith and salvation certainly does not DEPEND on logic or reason. The Truth is what it is. Of course, the Truth is logical. Our understanding or explanation may or may not be logical.

We fumble over different translations of "resurrection" and "logic", and probably also of "salvation".

We are saved by God's Grace though our faith in Christ Jesus. Sometimes we seem to forget that the Church/church IS the body of Christ of which we are all a part.
=======================
Some seem to want Scripture to be our faith. Some seem to choose the Creed. These are pointers to Jesus. Even most of our rituals are pointers to Jesus. Obviously, in some of the critical rituals, we are joined to Jesus.
=======================
Yes, sometimes we go though the Dark Night, the dry time. Scripture is not enough. The Church and its rituals is not enough. They don't satisfy. In those times, we struggle to sometimes understand Scripture and the Church, as if in some way they are the Source. Jesus IS our life. Jesus lives within each of us. Jesus will never forsake us. The Answer is within. And yes, reading experiences of the saints can help.

There is no answer for the Darkness other than allowing the Spirit remove it. Of course, being part of Church community and participating in the liturgy of Church life can help. At very least, we are surrounded by Love and God's own family and Body.
===
I apologize for what may seem like venting. I was simply a bit frustrated by much of the discussion.

Thank you so much for you input regarding the Dark Night of the Soul.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Church's tradition, according to the scriptures, ALONE, is more than all Fathers both, that is my premise. Because, there is some theological particularities in each Fathers, that the tradition didn't assumed, for example, Apocatastasis with Gregory of Nyssa, or else..

I do suspect we have some language barriers.

Our Tradition recognizes that there are statements by some of the Fathers not in line with the Church as a whole. This isn't a problem for us, as we don't see any of them as infallible. The consensus is the safest path. Aberrations are a problem. And sometimes councils are needed to address questions.

I'm not sure with the structure of your sentence how "alone" plays in. Because of the comma, you could be referring to Tradition alone, or you could mean Scripture alone. I'm not trying to insult you, just letting you know that the meaning can be unclear in that sentence.

From what I have read of Luther's original intention for "sola scriptura" it seems not that far off from how the Orthodox view the Scriptures, which is that Scripture is always true, cannot be contradicted, and is informed/interpreted according to Tradition. Many include Scripture as a part of Holy Tradition.

By contrast, some have "evolved" the concept of sola scriptura to reject anything and everything they do not specifically read in Scripture (or claim to reject - in my experience, they actually practice some of their own "tradition" while rejecting those of other bodies based on this argument), and at the same time, their interpretation of Scripture is informed not by Holy Tradition but by their own reading, or that handed down to them by some other person interpreting for himself.

It seems to be an ongoing process, depending on where you look into it in the evolution of Protestant bodies.

Anyway, fwiw, that's my position on sola scriptura.

 

[santiagoamr]

So, you profess Apocatastasis, like Gregory of Nyssa, or Aphartodocetism, like Hilary of Poitiers?...

BTW wheFrom where by the post you replied to would you ever draw a conclusion that I profess one or the other?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Like I said it is very laudable, i myself have lost all patience, and for now I am going through what some call the Dark night of the Soul, so my Faith is 99% intact and has been for these past 5 years since it started, but in a cynical form, specially regarding everything material about the Church, including it's structure, images, Clerics, Rituals and even some of it's creeds, like the Primacy of Peter. I have not gone to Mass in two years nor confessed, but I trust completely in the Mercy of God and obviously his plan and acknowledge that he may want this suffering for me at this time.

One thing though, I have been thinking about converting to one of the Orthodox Churches for a while, but really have not invested time in research. I would not even begin to contemplate becoming a Protestant, nor any other thing, There is to much knowledge and understanding of Truth to even contemplate forgetting about the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession or many other beliefs we Orthodox and Catholics share.

One of the reasons I have not given it time is because there are not may options where I live, so if I ever get out of this "suffering" I would like to receive Communion and Confession. For us Catholics it is permitted to receive them from most Orthodox Churches, it is "interchangeable" since Catholics acknowledge the Apostolic Succession within most Orthodox Churches and also the similarity and in the majority of creeds the equality of them.

Ah, you have my prayers.

I have been in very difficult times too, on varying lengths and for different reasons. I do know enough to know it can be spiritually tortuous. God be with you and have mercy on you.

I am reminded of some writings of St. Silhouan, which were a great encouragement to me when I began to read them. I don't know if they can help you. I'll look for a link to an article, and will post if I can find it. As I said, I don't know if you would respond the same though. Edit: here is the article that talks about it. There are several books - especially Remember Your First Love by Archimandrite Zacharias.

It must be that much more difficult, being out of the Church.

Is there an Orthodox priest you could speak with, if you don't want to speak to a Catholic priest? I do not wish to discourage you, but I would not like for you to discover the truth at an inconvenient time - even if the Catholic Church allows you to receive the sacraments in an Orthodox Church, the canons of our Church do not generally permit it. This is a matter for discussion with a priest though.

The research would not take long with a good teacher. There are differences in how we look at things, but it is less than the gulf between Orthodox and some other groups.

If you like, come over to TAW (The Eastern Orthodox forum), though some of our members come here to TT. We have Catholics there as well who chose to post with us, and we welcome them. If you do come, it IS a fasting season for us so ... please be patient if we are not at our best. But you are welcome, if the fellowship can help you.

You do have my prayers. God be with you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

BTW wheFrom where by the post you replied to would you ever draw a conclusion that I profess one or the other?

I'm not sure, but I think the language issue has led to many misunderstandings in this thread?

 

[Job8]

prots have a hard time dealing with this...

As well they should. It is always hard to deal with fantasy.