This is why Coptic Orthodox Christians and Catholics alike believe that they individually posess the true faith. It is because they have the wrong information about each other's faith. People, please realize no one religion or denomination is the best. If that were so, we would be claiming to speak for God, and saying "THIS is what God wants, I know it because I am Him." But honestly, all we have are the words of the disciples, the words of Jesus, our saints, and miracles. You can be coptic orthodox, and still go to hell. It just depends how you lived your life.
I tell you, neither Orthodoxy or catholicism is the true faith. The true faith is faith that comes from your heart.
This is why Coptic Orthodox Christians and Catholics alike believe that they individually posess the true faith. It is because they have the wrong information about each other's faith.
I do not believe that the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the people on this forum, have presented any wrong information about the roman catholic church.If there are any dogma that you feel were misrepresented , please advise.
People, please realize no one religion or denomination is the best.
I believe that it is you that has to realize that religioin is not an ideology or the current best approach to knowing God, buit it sht etruth revelaed by God through his only begotten Son who realized the prophecies of the OT and made the new convenant, offering salvation to everybody. The inherent deficiency in other religioins is the isolation of God from his creation, the lack of consistency in the built up to their theology. The reason is the fact that it is the product of humans.
What do you think about Islam, for example ?
If that were so, we would be claiming to speak for God, and saying "THIS is what God wants, I know it because I am Him
The fact that you know that your brother wants something, because he told you so, does not make you identical and one and the same with your brother. I am not sure what denomination or religion you follow, but if you are christian , you must consider the Bible authoritive and the spoken words of God. God revealed to us his intention through the Bible, and for Orthodox, we know how to study it because of the Apostolic Tradition. What you propose here is actually a form of a heresy called Pluralism.
You can be coptic orthodox, and still go to hell. It just depends how you lived your life.
True, that is why we have to work relentless on our salvation but I have a big chance of salvation which other have chosen to ignore by rejecting the Orthodox faith and not seeking God. As such, they have no chance of salvation no matter what personal morals they have.
The true faith is faith that comes from your heart.
How did you come to such conclusion, and where did you find any reference to it in Tradition or even by common sense. WHat if your heart tells you to kill and worship idols ?
You said: I do not believe that the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the people on this forum, have presented any wrong information about the roman catholic church.If there are any dogma that you feel were misrepresented , please advise.My response: Someone said something about Catholism that was against its Doctrine, and I attempted to explain that that is not what Catholics believe.
This is what they said: "hey im sure someone may have said this, but i didn't read all the above; two major differences: 1 catholics don't believe in the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary 2 they believe in two natures of Jesus Christ" People, please realize no one religion or denomination is the best. You said: I believe that it is you that has to realize that religioin is not an ideology or the current best approach to knowing God, buit it sht etruth revelaed by God through his only begotten Son who realized the prophecies of the OT and made the new convenant, offering salvation to everybody. The inherent deficiency in other religioins is the isolation of God from his creation, the lack of consistency in the built up to their theology. The reason is the fact that it is the product of humans. My response: Good points. However, religion IS ideology in nature. You are confusing ideology with its double meaning. You think that ideology is : The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture whereas I see ideology as: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system. Two definitions, same dictionary, same word.
You asked: What do you think about Islam, for example ?
My response: Islam would go with the first definition of ideology. I see nothing of praising God, only praising man.
You said: The fact that you know that your brother wants something, because he told you so, does not make you identical and one and the same with your brother.
My response: Eh...what does this have to do with my post? I am sorry but I do not understand where you were going with this.
You said: I am not sure what denomination or religion you follow, but if you are christian , you must consider the Bible authoritive and the spoken words of God. God revealed to us his intention through the Bible, and for Orthodox, we know how to study it because of the Apostolic Tradition. What you propose here is actually a form of a heresy called Pluralism.
My response:
So you shall excommunicate me as well? Why did everyone's view of Genesis as Literal change to Figurative after the discoveries of Fossils? I'm not saying I don't believe in the Bible. Nor am I saying it is NOT authoritative. What I am saying is that I have never been in any of the settings depicted in the Bible nor have you. I just have scriptures and I'm told that its from God. Does it affect my faith? People THINK it does. But it absolutely does NOT. It does, however, make me think that God has a lot more mercy than people do not give him credit for.
You said: True, that is why we have to work relentless on our salvation but I have a big chance of salvation which other have chosen to ignore by rejecting the Orthodox faith and not seeking God. As such, they have no chance of salvation no matter what personal morals they have.
My response: So you will enter Heaven before a Catholic person will? Doesn't this remind you of the people who persecuted Christ? Their confidence for the True Faith? And whose fault is it if hypothetically an Orthodox Christian enters Heaven before a Catholic? The Catholic? Or the Orthodox Christian who didn't speak a word about his religion to him? OH but what if he DOESNT want to accept Orthodoxy. Maybe because they are too confused to decide what the True Faith really is, given so much tradition in the Orthodox Faith. (I'll get into this more into detail later)
You responded when I said "true faith comes from the heart:" How did you come to such conclusion, and where did you find any reference to it in Tradition....etc.
My response: Let us just stop there with that word. I know Deacons in my Church who fear for their lives if they mess up with a certain chant or response in the Altar. Is it for fear that God might be displeased? No it is fear from Abouna, or the Deacon Conductor. Or worse, what the congregation will think of them. What does that tell you? I'm not gonna explain it because you should really get this on your own. The people who crucified our beloved Christ were worshipping tradition moreso than what they were supposed to worship. They let their Jewish Orthodox traditions be their steering wheel, and the final jurisdiction in everything God-related. Let me revise what I wrote to make it more clear, True faith is faith that comes from the heart, that comes from the truth you receive from the Bible. Not the Coptic Orthodox Church. Not the Infallible Pope. Not the Bishops. Not even the Catholic Diocese. The Bible, that is literally God in writing.
I am of course Coptic Orthodox, baptized even by a Bishop. but I will not hear one more word from anyone in my church about how Catholics will never be saved and how Coptic Orthodoxy is the true faith. Everyone coptic believes this, I think.
[glow=red,2,300]I'm really sorry if I repeat. I really wanted to post, but I couldn't read all of them. I am truly sorry. [/glow]
1. Catholics take crackers for communion, not bread. 2. They don't take off their shoes in communion. 3. They have girl deacons. 4. Their prayers are different from ours. 5. They baptize different. 6. I doubt that they have Myron. 7. They allow dating. 8. They confess in a weird way; you don't look at the priest so that way it makes it easier. 9. They have Ash Wednesday. 10. They have to give up ONE thing during the whole fast. 11. They go to church like every Wednesday for confirmation. [glow=red,2,300] I hope that's enough to help out.
[quote author=Rony link=board=1;threadid=69;start=30#msg51614 date=1143872319] I am of course Coptic Orthodox, baptized even by a Bishop. but I will not hear one more word from anyone in my church about how Catholics will never be saved and how Coptic Orthodoxy is the true faith. Everyone coptic believes this, I think. Whether you are baptized by a bishop or by the Apostle Mark himself does not give you any more credibility than anyone on this site, unless you can back up the information you just mentioned with a logical scheme that justifies your position. What you presented is simply wrong, for when a Church like the roman catholic church is in schism with the Orthodox Church, and when they embrace heresies that attack the very nature of the Trinity and each Godhead like the Filioque, when they embrace heresies like Papal Infallability attacking salvation at its core and believe in Roman Supremacy that attacks the Church as the Body of Christ altogether, then the only logical conclusion from all the facts that they are not part of the Church.
A Church is defined by communion, and by being one in the Body of Christ. Salvation is through the sacraments. RC are not in communion with us and this simply puts them outside the Church.No salvation outside the Church as many Orthodox Fathers and bishops have taught us.
However, religion IS ideology in nature. You are confusing ideology with its double meaning. You think that ideology is : The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture whereas I see ideology as: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system. Two definitions, same dictionary, same word.
That is beside the point, for the two definitions do not qualify as a definition for Christianity that is neither a set of ideas nor a set of doctrines, it is simply the truth. Ideology has a human element in its definition, something not applicable to Christianity. When you say that no religion is better than another,no denomination has the truth exclusively, then I must question your logic in reaching such conclusion.
Christianity is the truth revealed by God. Man could have never captured nor understood the mystery of God in its fullest sense if not for the incarnation and the revelation of the way of salvation through the Cross. The faith, which is not only a set of dogmas but rather a life of worship through a true belief, was delivered by the Apostles. Even the blessed Apostles had no addition to the faith. As such, to come to such a conclusion as you did you must challenge this fact. If you do, then there is no basis for discussion because we have different references.
If we agree on the above, then I wonder again how do you consider many denominations acceptable when they have huge differences in their faith. Only one denomination must have survived the heresies and continued as the truthful Church, loyal to the truth delivered by the Apostles. This is the Orthodox Church (Coptic, Syrian, Indian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eriterian) and exclusively those. The Chalcedonian fell into heresy in 451 a.d., the latins (roman catholics) continued the heresies after the Photian schism and then decisively embraced their heresies in 1054 a.d., followed by a series of heresies, and the Protestants are 20,000 "churches" each with different heresy at the core of their faith.
One Church survived and it is the Orthodox Church, according to the promise given by the Lord that the gates of Hell will not overcome the one true Church.
Islam would go with the first definition of ideology. I see nothing of praising God, only praising man
This is an informed reply, and this makes my point even more clear, for then your opinion about no religion being better than the other will be void and wrong.
You said: The fact that you know that your brother wants something, because he told you so, does not make you identical and one and the same with your brother.
My response: Eh...what does this have to do with my post? I am sorry but I do not understand where you were going with this.
It was a simple illustration to show the fault in your argument. You claim nobody can actually judge another faith for this will make this person like God. Because God has revealed the truth to us through the Tradition by his Only begotten Son, we are (and in fact it is our duty) to judge any faith. "Test the spirit" says the Apostle John. It is not speculations nor fortune telling, it is simply taking the Apostolic Faith as our standard to measure any ideas against.
So you shall excommunicate me as well?
I have no such authority, nor do I care about your personal views. I just think the youth on this forum deserve a chance to know the truth without having their thoughts polluted with advocates of the "group-hug"mentality.
Doesn't this remind you of the people who persecuted Christ? Their confidence for the True Faith?
- Nobody persecuted the Rc fellows, and if you ever have a chance to read history, you will find out that the Orthodox have been persecuted severely by the Chalcedonians of which the Rc are part and have been plotted against by the Rc missionary.
- If you are not confident of the true faith, and if you are in a search for the true faith, then we can pray for you. But you have to come to terms with your situation. You either know that Orthodoxy is the true faith and the unaltered Truth delivered by the Apostles, and as such your journey for the true faith ends here, or you continue searching. That's also acceptable, but do not present your findings as the absolute truth when you yourself still lacks the understanding of it.
- I am afraid the analogy you just mentioned does not hold, and is a result of an amputated and surface scratching reading of history. Those who persecuted the Lord were driven by their own greed, by their own carnal lusts and by a blind zeal that cannot discern the truth. If you still hold to this analogy, then you must consider Orthodoxy to be something else other than the whole truth.
What I am saying is that I have never been in any of the settings depicted in the Bible nor have you. I just have scriptures and I'm told that its from God.
If that is what you believe, I encourage you to start a search for the true faith so that you can believe for yourself instead of following somebody who told you so. This is by far better than being caught in the middle, between a faith that you do not have full confidence in and between what is out there. Many of us have been through this phase.
I know Deacons in my Church who fear for their lives if they mess up with a certain chant or response in the Altar.
I believe this is irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever personal grievances you have against individuals in the Church, whether justified or not, does not amount to a dogmatic position or a formula about the faith.
True faith is faith that comes from the heart, that comes from the truth you receive from the Bible. Not the Coptic Orthodox Church. Not the Infallible Pope. Not the Bishops. Not even the Catholic Diocese. The Bible, that is literally God in writing.
Everybody have the Bible, and everybody can make the Bible say whatever he/she wants the Bible to say. My understanding, your understanding and anybody's understanding of the Bible is irrelevant to the Faith.
What is important is what the Apostles understood and how they intended their writings to be understood. That is what is called Tradition (capital C), and it is something totally different than tradition. Sola Scriptura is a stupid and ignorant invention of Luther, Calvin & co. that did not even stand the test of its own definition.
You can consult the Southern Coptic Orthodox Diocese website for more information. You will find it under the "literature"section.
Firstly, the doctrine of Christianity is essential for salvivic prosperity. If you are right in everything regarding your beliefs of Christianity and yet are wrong in your understanding of the doctrinal nature of Christ, then you are wrong enough to lose your soul for all eternity.
On the other hand, the individual who claims absolute certainty that his fellow brother will not enter God's kingdom is as foolish as the individual who claims that he will, with absolute certainty enter the kingdom of Heaven. For the moment an individual has made such an emphatic claim, he has lost site of the means by which to enter God's eternal kingdom. He has placed Himself in the role of Divine judge and executioner.
Therefore as the church fathers have often claimed, it is reasonable to declare that the embracement of false doctrine prohibits one from truly knowing Christ, thus from entering the kingdom of Heaven. Nevertheless, it is unconscionable to claim that any established peoples will most certainly not enter the kingdom of Heaven. For such a privilege of claim is reserved for the Lord Himself and for no other. Such a privilege would pre-require that we completely absorb the person of God in all His glorious omniscience.
We are called to judge upon every issue, ideology, conception doctrine and spiritual truth that emanates from man.....but are never called to judge men themselves. I personally cannot say whether Catholics will or will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. It is not an eluding or weak response to declare an uncertainty in regard to issues that pervade our logical processes and limited perspectival observances. For we neither hold reasonable scope nor reasonable calculation when it comes to discerning the salvivic prosperity of any man. We are simply in no position to dictate to others what the foreboding wisdom of the Father's omniscient nature has found veracous.
Stavros you raise very excellent points, yet again. They are so excellent that I do not wish to even dwell upon them. Everything you have stated is exactly what I believe. It may not show in my writing because I am in that phase you are talking about that wants to seek more knowledge and I find myself questioning Coptic Orthodoxy day in and day out. Not just that but any religion. I just don't know what to believe in any more. It used to be so simple when I was a child, but I am 20 years of age now and still feel like I'm only 3 years old when it comes to knowing the Truth. Don't think less of me for this (I know you wouldn't given your writing as of now, you seem to be the "ideal" christian.) I am just so confused when I hear people in my church saying Catholics will never receive salvation or stuff of that nature. Plus I thought that after Vatican 2 roman catholics could take communion at the orthodox churches and confess there? this is what a catholic priest told me at my previous university. Or was he speaking of Western Orthodoxy?
may the Lord be with you. I enjoyed the discussion with you, and I have made the points I wanted to emphasize by commenting on the good points you made.
As you mentioned Vatican II, I must comment that even conservative Catholics may have problems with this council and the approach it took to other religions.Catholics, after this council, actually give communion to non-believers and administer the sacraments to them. If you read through the acts of this council or the dogmatic position on which they based their NEW practice, you will find that it embraces a Universalist heresy in its magnified form to develop this dogma. While the catholic apologists can eloquently play around the obvious heresy in their practices and dogmas, they cannot escape the fact that the real reason for such development in dogma was to embrace everyone from every religion under the RC church umbrella. It is so political.
Sacraments have no effect without faith, and in fact a person who is unworthy takes punishment and judgment for himself. The fact that RC believers can take communion in the Orthodox Church does not mean they will have access to the grace. First, because they do not have the right faith, and second, Orthodox priests do not allow them to take communion in their churches. If they believe in the Orthodox dogmas and reject their own, then why not convert to orthodoxy and become a member in the Body of the Lord with full access to communion as the rest ?
In any case, it was a nice discussion.
Gmankbadi,
We are called to judge upon every issue, ideology, conception doctrine and spiritual truth that emanates from man.....but are never called to judge men themselves.
That is I believe a great phrase that summarizes my position but I allow to point out the contradiction with the obvious contradiction with the before mentioned phrase:
On the other hand, the individual who claims absolute certainty that his fellow brother will not enter God's kingdom is as foolish as the individual who claims that he will, with absolute certainty. For the moment an individual has made such an emphatic claim, he has lost site of the means by which to enter God's eternal kingdom. He has placed Himself in the role of Divine judge and executioner.
I judged the faith, and not the actions and sins of the person. You would be absolutely right had I said that a "SINNER" will be cast in hell no matter what. But I did not do that, I judged the faith as practiced, as articulated by the others and in the light of our own standards. I acknowledge that many muslims, Buddists, Seaks, Hindos are better than myself, yet is salvation by deeds and works only ?
If so, I wonder why Abraham, David, Joseph and all the prophets and righteous man of the OT were in hell before the coming of Christ. It is because of the lack of atonement for their sins, whatever these sins were.
Salvation HAS to go through the Cross, there is no other way around it. Let me explain it to you in simple terms as Anba Youssef has explained it to me to correct mistakes in my understanding of salvation.
In the old testament, when David sinned, Nathan the prophet told him that his sin was "removed" , but not forgiven. It is because for a sin to be forgiven, it has to be carried by Christ the Lord and the price has to be paid by Him. It is therefore that Abraham rejoiced in the coming of the Lord, and David was eager for His coming, and Isaiah was anticipating his incarnation because they know that there is no other way for salvation. All of them landed in Hell, the very righteous men of the OT. It is also a sign that you cannot be a sinner whose sins are not washed by the Cross and end up in the kingdom of heaven. Wouldn't Abraham be more worthy ?
So the next step is to exmaine the access of the unbelievers to the salvic powers of the Cross. If we understand the sacrament of Confession and Eucharist correctly, there would be no need to. The OT oferings were the image of the Cross. The jewish sinner used to make offering by confessing his sin to the priest who transmits it by putting his hand on the offering to the lamb itself that is then slaughtered instead of the sinner.
It is exactly the same on the Cross, with the symbolic lamb being replaced by Christ the Lord, and the sins being carried by the Lord on the Cross.
How do you relate to the Cross, an event that is 2000 years distant ? ONLY through the Eucharist. We firmly believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is ONE and the SAME of Christ that was offered on the Cross. The priest takes your sins through the confession and PUTS them on the Body of Christ in the liturgy, and so your sins are washed and are hanged on the Cross with Christ.
It troubles me greatly when people take the Eucharist because they are told so or because it makes them feel good or for whatever reason.
As such, unbelievers have SADLY no access to the Eucharist and are therefore not saved. Their sins stand as they are and they perish with it. I am not saying this with triumph or with cold blood, and I know it really hurts many because some of our relatives and friends might be under the same yoke, but truth is truth.
He has placed Himself in the role of Divine judge and executioner.
God is not sitting on a throne deciding where everybody is headed, so I am not assuming anybody's role. God has revealed to us the truth, and the most important if not the core of it is salvation. There is no speculation on matters so important and to say WE DO NOT KNOW whether unbelievers will perish or not is a result of a group-hug mentality and false ecumenism that has prevailed in our cultures and has now infiltrated the Church, but has no place in our faith.
I judged the faith, and not the actions and sins of the person. You would be absolutely right had I said that a "SINNER" will be cast in hell no matter what. But I did not do that, I judged the faith as practiced, as articulated by the others and in the light of our own standards. I acknowledge that many Muslims, Buddhists, Seaks, Hindos are better than myself, yet is salvation by deeds and works only ?
Roni,
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis that one can judge doctrine....and if your intention is to judge doctrine, then I apologize for any misconception I may have held. Many religions have indeed prevailed in moralistic progress yet fall far from any prevalence to eternality and everlasting life. In fact, Christ did not come into this world to bestow upon us moral values, but rather eternal life--Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges God's grace above man's works.
By the same token, Catholicism should not be placed on the same borderline as other world religions. There doctrine is not substantially heretical, rather it is implicativley inaccurate. (However, many a reader will disagree upon this point. Yet, I ask such readers to consider to themsleves the following question; if every nation, tribe and tounge will stand stamped with God's name upon their "foreheads" (Rev 7:9), what does this entail for all those who been converted to Christ through Catholicism?) Whether or not such inaccuracy ramificates into eternal damnation for the Catholic Church is solely up to God's judgment, even beyond our rational speculation. Thus, I speak nothing further in regard to this matter.
As such, unbelievers have SADLY no access to the Eucharist and are therefore not saved. Their sins stand as they are and they perish with it. I am not saying this with triumph or with cold blood, and I know it really hurts many because some of our relatives and friends might be under the same yoke, but truth is truth.
I completely agree.
God is not sitting on a throne deciding where everybody is headed, so I am not assuming anybody's role. God has revealed to us the truth, and the most important if not the core of it is salvation. There is no speculation on matters so important and to say WE DO NOT KNOW whether unbelievers will perish or not is a result of a group-hug mentality and false ecumenism that has prevailed in our cultures and has now infiltrated the Church, but has no place in our faith.
We may speak boldly in saying that those who trail against God and His commandments--manifested in Christian Orthodoxy--will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. However, there are many believers of the right way, who will lose their sight on this path of righteous countenance; who will unfortunately fall into perpetual perdition. There are also many who, currently far from God, will return in glorious splendor to their share in Christ's mercy and salvation. Therefore, you may adamantly preach that WE KNOW that unbelievers who remain obstinate to God will perish, yet you may not say WE KNOW unbelievers, presently living, will perish. For only one with absolute foreknowledge of the future can make such a claim, yet even Our Lord reserved that right for the Father in Heaven.
I hope I have clarified my position more definitively.
What you two, Stavro & Rony, seem to be talking about is ecclesiology, the theology (not the "ideology") of what constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. All Christians worthy of the name believe that there is no salvation outside the Church. This is why religion has become a political weapon to deny grace, and hence rights, to selected "heretics." This is why the Byzantines slaughtered Coptic Christians. This is why the Romans slaughtered so many Orthodox and Protestants, and vice versa. In my opinion, correct ecclesiology must never squelch Charity.
What do you think? Does God's mercy extend to those who, through no fault of their own, are not within the boundaries of the true Church? Are we in a position to say who is damned and who not? Would not we who read and write in this forum be in for a shock if we died only to find out we have been in the "wrong" Church if God had no mercy for the ignorant?
No, before you all start screaming that I have said something blasphemous, settle down and think. Every sincere Christian (or even Muslim, for that matter) is doing what she or he thinks God expects. Yet all of us have been conditioned into believing what we have been taught. I say, with the Lord, "To whom much is given, much is required." If you believe you are in the true Church, you have the duty to follow Jesus and to "bless those that curse you" and stop saying silly things about other people's traditions about which you have very little real knowledge.
Stay true to the teachings of the Church and pray for all people that we will obtain God's mercy together. Do these thoughts make me a heretic?
Does God's mercy extend to those who, through no fault of their own, are not within the boundaries of the true Church?
It is through their fault that they never searched for the true God or have rejected the true faith when presented to them. It is definitely everybody's responsibility to search for the true God. In addition, how would you abrogate the Cross and deliver salvation to those who do not believe in the salvic power of the Cross or have access to it ? This is the real question without the need to beat around the bush with rhetorical questions.
Are we in a position to say who is damned and who not?
Yes, we are in such position and the Church has always maintained this. We do not judge actions, we judge the faith. WHat you are advocating here is a inconsistent cultural theory, political in its very core, group-hug mentality that finds no reference in scripture as explained in the light of Tradition. Examine the condemnation of Arius by Nicea, Nestorius by Ephesus and many other smaller cases of heresy in which a person was condemned for his faith to be outside the salvic power of the Cross.
Would not we who read and write in this forum be in for a shock if we died only to find out we have been in the "wrong" Church if God had no mercy for the ignorant
If you are not sure of your faith, then it is not faith to begin with and the question is indeed void of any truth. I, after searching, am sure 100 % that only Orthodoxy can save the person. Not because God requires me to spell out some dogmas and do some works, but because my sins are washed through the sacraments and I am sanctified and justified by faith and works. To answer such question, we have to agree on common references first, if we are to have a descent discussion. If it will be my word against yours, then why don't we save ourselves the trouble and let everybody be content with what he believes.
Stay true to the teachings of the Church and pray for all people that we will obtain God's mercy together. Do these thoughts make me a heretic?
To stay true to the teachings of the Church is indeed a blessed call, yet when the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the sacraments, and heretics cannot be saved, it is truly a contradiction to believe otherwise yet proclaim to be true to the Church. Heretic or not does not concern anybody in the moment. We are not discussing persons but rather ideas.
Thank you, Stavro. I now know where I belong. Still, since we are living in the era of fascist fundamentalism, your words chill me to the bone. I want to believe that God is more merciful than we humans are. Look at all the blood shed through the ages, being shed right now, all in the name of defending "correct belief." Are you saying that this is what God wants? Should we read the Old Testament as a prescription for genocide in a war against "God's enemies," as many fundamentalist Protestants and Jews are now proposing? For me, such a "dogma" would make it very hard to distinguish between Christ and Antichrist, since Hitler himself used demon worship to promote the same agenda.
Look at all the blood shed through the ages, being shed right now, all in the name of defending "correct belief." Are you saying that this is what God wants?
This has nothing to do with our discussion. I
do not believe that anybody here advocated killing anybody for his beliefs and thanks God our great Church legacy has no such incidents in its history. In fact, we were on the receiving end of such massacres.
But unless you explain how this relates to our discussion, and unless you go and read my posts and those of gmankabadi and Roni to make your point of view in relation to the topic, I am inclined to stop posting on this topic.
You might wonna belief that there is hope for unbelievers who die unbelievers, and you can hope as much as you want, but it does not change from the fact that this has no place in Christianity. In fact, this is a very heresy condemned by the Church called Universalism and Pluralism.
Still, since we are living in the era of fascist fundamentalism, your words chill me to the bone.
Truth always has such effects. Try to define fundamentalism first. It means to go back to the fundamentals. Because religion is not an ideology or current best approach, but it is the truth revealed by the Apostles to the Church, you would have to go to the fundamentals to begin understanding any religion.
Is that what you are attacking, this fundamental aproach to matters or did you mix it up with political fundamentalism like in the Republic Party in the US who gave fundamentalism a bad name ?
My political views are socialist, by the way, and I believe politics to be evolving to suit the people needs in different places and times. But I adopt fundamentalism as I defined it above when it comes to dogmatic and religious matters. This is the way I became a believer (i.e. Orthodox).
Should we read the Old Testament as a prescription for genocide in a war against "God's enemies," as many fundamentalist Protestants and Jews are now proposing?
No, we should not, but again this is totally irrelevent to the discussion here.
For me, such a "dogma" would make it very hard to distinguish between Christ and Antichrist, since Hitler himself used demon worship to promote the same agenda.
I am afraid you are attacking a strawman here. You assume that we advocate killing others, and I do not believe this point is made by anybody.
It is through their fault that they never searched for the true God or have rejected the true faith when presented to them. It is definitely everybody's responsibility to search for the true God. In addition, how would you abrogate the Cross and deliver salvation to those who do not believe in the salvic power of the Cross or have access to it ? This is the real question without the need to beat around the bush with rhetorical questions.
Stavro are u saying that just because they were born into another religion they are going to hell. Didnt Jesus die on the cross for the sin of all people even the faithless.
Yes, we are in such position and the Church has always maintained this. We do not judge actions, we judge the faith. WHat you are advocating here is a inconsistent cultural theory, political in its very core, group-hug mentality that finds no reference in scripture as explained in the light of Tradition. Examine the condemnation of Arius by Nicea, Nestorius by Ephesus and many other smaller cases of heresy in which a person was condemned for his faith to be outside the salvic power of the Cross.
Satvro i think you are forgeting that the coptic church is also considered are heritcal church.
Dioscorus supported Eutyches, Who was a heretic according to the Byzantines & the Romans. Not getting into who's right or not the copts are heretics for the Romans and greeks and Romans and Greeks are heritics for the copts, and of course, the greeks and romans call each other hereitics. But can anyone say where God stands in all this? Each member of each church only belive what he or she has been told to believe.
Satvro i think you are forgeting that the coptic church is also considered are heritcal church.
This is a stupid lie and it does not stand the test of history or logic. You will have to produce any heretical sayings by our Fathers and prove that the Church (any OO congregation if you can) actually supported such heresy. You will find neither .
Dioscorus supported Eutyches, Who was a heretic according to the Byzantines & the Romans
I do not give a rat's leg about convincing you, but it is important to show the truth about the great confessor St. Dioscoros in the face of such lies for the young Copts that might be following the discussion.
I recommend you that you read a book by Fr. V.C. Samuel titled "Chalcedon Re-examined". In case you do not have the time, you might consider the following:
- Pope St. Dioscoros (I appreciate if you refer to him as Dioscoros of Alexandria as this is a coptic site in which we held our saints in utmost respect) never accepted Eutychus while his case was invistigated. I praise the Lord that He has given this great saint the wisdom to avoid falling into heresy and never accepting a man under council condemnation into communion. After the council of Ephesus II, Eutychus was exonerated and he was part of the Church.
- The charge of heresy against St. Dioscoros,defender of faith, was brought later in history as part of the strawman polemics that the Byzantines followed to cover their own Nestorian heresy. The fact remains, St. Dioscoros, even against his archenemies Leo of Rome and Anatolios of COnstaninople, as well as Theodret, Ibas, Eusebius and the rest of the nestorian party was never condemned of heresy in Chalcedon. Read the acts of the council to make an educated argument first before listing the "hearsay" arguments. So, on what basis do you make such stupid claim ?
- Please show us any teachings of St. Dioscoros that are heretical and prove to us that they are, for there is no single word that the great Dioscoros said that is not included in one form or another in the faith of Cyril. Whatever denomination you follow, you cannot condemn St. Cyril unless you are Assyrian.
- It is most interesting that in the council of Chalcedon, the council that exonerated Nestorians and condemned the Orthodox, St Dioscoros has said that if Eutychus actually held any heresy, let him be cast in Hell, but the issue was never the protection of the Orthodox faith in this robber synod of Chalcedon but it was an agenda by the Chalcedonians to embrace Nestorianism and Papal Infallaibility and Roman Supremacy. Both heresies proved lethal to the Chalcedonians in later centuries.
Not getting into who's right or not the copts are heretics for the Romans and greeks and Romans and Greeks are heritics for the copts, and of course, the greeks and romans call each other hereitics. But can anyone say where God stands in all this?
Yes, we can, by taking the Apostolic faith as our standard and by possessing enough common sense (and being literate of course) to conclude the right . It seems that you are a confused fellow who is lost between all these Protestant denominations and anti-christian groups , having no solid foundation into the faith, and as such you decide to embrace everything as valid.
Each member of each church only belive what he or she has been told to believe.
I am not sure about you, but this is simply not true for us Orthodox. It is the experience of worship as orthodox steadfast in the Apostolic faith that makes us different and makes us truly grasp the pearls of the faith. A faith is proven by hardships, and there is no other Church (or faith, religion) that has passed through tribulation in the magnitude and power like our Church, and here we are while all our enemies perished.
tavro are u saying that just because they were born into another religion they are going to hell.
Come on, stop these childish techniques and actually read my post. Those who rejected the faith perish. That includes everyone outside the Orthodox Church, and there is no other consistent view that could be given without logical flaws except the one I presented, because it is the Apostles' faith.
Didnt Jesus die on the cross for the sin of all people even the faithless.
Go back and read the Bible. He gave the chance for everybody to be saved, and people will chose to reject him and will perish. Salvation is for everybody, but not everybody will accept the salvation for they deny the faith. What you are advocating is Universalism and Pluralism.
In the end, I do not find any motive to continue discussion for the sake of having the last word. It is not interesting if you keep repeating the same vague and empty words without any support from any source. If you struggle with your faith, we will pray for you, but do not present your cconfusions as a form of dogma or truth when it is not.
Come on, stop these childish techniques and actually read my post. Those who rejected the faith perish. That includes everyone outside the Orthodox Church, and there is no other consistent view that could be given without logical flaws except the one I presented, because it is the Apostles' faith.
Personal attack removed. If we as the Orthodox people belive in a GOD that would send all who do not belive in him to Hell what kind of god is that it would go against all we learn in sunday school as young kids we were told that God is a merciful god.
You use the term Orthodox alot but what u may like to over look the orthodox churches are not unified.
and what faith did u follow before u became Orthodox?
Personal attack removed. If we as the Orthodox people belive in a GOD that would send all who do not belive in him to Hell what kind of god is that it would go against all we learn in sunday school as young kids we were told that God is a merciful god.
You use the term Orthodox alot but what u may like to over look the orthodox churches are not unified.
and what faith did u follow before u became Orthodox?
Be careful my friend, do not use bad words and sin, for it is not the arguments about theology that casts someone to hell but how you conduct your life; I will leave you with some verses from the Holy Bible to contemplate on: “ He said to him, `I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant! “ Luke 19:22
“ And whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.: Matthew 5:22
“ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10: nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6
In the Coptic Orthodox Faith, theology is the way of life, you can not separate theology from faith, both goes together. Our understanding of God is the way that lead the believers to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
I don't think i'll be very involved in this discussion (since it is an overly complex one, and which will hence be quite time-consuming), but I do feel like the issues at hand are not as black and white some may perceive them to be.
I would agree with the notion that "there is no salvation outside of the Church", but I would disagree with some with respect to how this is to be interpreted. It does not mean that God cannot save people outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church, or even that there can be no one outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church who may be saved, but rather, the statement in question simply affirms that the only vehicle and certain means for salvation here on earth is the Church.
What I advocate is not universalism, since it does not dictate that everyone, those within and those outside of the Church, will be saved; nor is it pluralism, since even though I may acknowledge the possibility that a person outside of the Church may be saved, I nonetheless affirm that their possible ultimate salvation is achieved in spite of their faith, and not strictly because of their works, but rather it is achieved according to their interaction with, and response to the Grace of God that operates throughout the whole world. The difference between the Grace that exists within the Church (i.e. that which we receive through the Sacraments) and that which exists outside of the Church, is that the former operates from within the believer, whilst the latter operates from without.
My view comes after much study of Biblical exegesis and patristics, so it is not emotionally motivated, nor do I have a group-hug mentality. It is understandable however that these issues would be up for debate considering the fact there has been no clear consensus on this matter since the inception of the Church, as well as the fact that the Church has yet to pass any dogmatic judgments on these issues.
Iqbal, I read the article by His Grace Metropolitan Bishop Pishoy, and I am really troubled by your assertion that there might be a chance for an unbeliever to obtain salvation outside the Apostolic Church. I did not find an Iota in His Grace’s article that support your claim, I hope I am wrong and did not understand you correctly. I understand that the Grace of God can reach to any person who sincerely seeks Him from his/her heart, but God in His eternal wisdom will guide that person to be saved through His Church, St. Paul. This is because God dose not deny Himself and He is always in consistence of His words. I also has an audio of His Grace that he delivered to the annual conference of the Church’s Servants in the Diocese of Al- Fayoum, Egypt regarding this subject. He is adamantly against the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the salvation of the unbelievers, their marriage to believers or administering to them the Eucharist.
With all do respect and I’m sorry to change the topic, but why is that you always seem to think that a person will only be saved through the church? I find your claim to be quiet troubling due to the fact that God is merciful and loving. I do believe that our church the “Coptic” church is the right path for me and my salvation but I am not ignorant or oblivious to the fact that there are other churches out there that worship the same God that I do. The problem I see is that when we start discussing theology, the church fathers, and other churches we get too caught up in the technical differences and we forget the bigger broader one, that God is love.
Catholics have significantly different doctrines and beliefs then what our church holds but does that mean that they will not be saved simply by the virtue that they are not baptized in our “Coptic” church? Is pope John Paul going to be condemned to eternal hell for being catholic? If that’s the case then heaven will truly be very empty.
I might have not understood your response but when I read “church” in your response then I assumed you were talking about the Coptic church and not the general Christian churches. If my assumption was wrong then please forgive me for I am a sinner.
However, if you were referring to all churches in general then again that raises problems for me as well. My God is omniscient, and I will not trouble myself and second guess the destiny and fate of others. God does work in mysterious ways and if a person truly found their salvation then they will take it upon themselves to find the truth and in doing so they will see that the church is essential for their salvation. However, if they did not reach that stage yet then God will decide their fate and I will not label them as condemned to hell.
Dear Mary, I usually do not respond to attack against me because I feel it speaks volume about the attackers and it is up tp him/her to be aggressive. But in this case, I was taken by your harsh words, knowing that you are lovely person with joyful heart, I will reply to your attack. 1- I never mentioned Coptic Church in my previous post, though it would be true, but on the contrary mentioned Apostolic Church. 2- There is no salvation outside the Church, Holy Sacraments, Baptism, Holy Unction, Confession, partaking of the Eucharist,....... you can read a book by HH Pope Shenouda III, title “ Salvation in the Orthodox Concept. “ 3- It is the Protestants who widely view salvation as only due to the grace of God, and we all know that is not what the loving Lord meant.
The problem I see is that when we start discussing theology, the church fathers, and other churches we get too caught up in the technical differences and we forget the bigger broader one, that God is love.
4- This is the fourth page of discussing pure theology, why just attacking me !!!!!, there was hundreds of posts before mine one taking about theology 5- I was referring to what Iqbal posted before. I hope you forgive me Mary.
I read the article by His Grace Metropolitan Bishop Pishoy, and I am really troubled by your assertion that there might be a chance for an unbeliever to obtain salvation outside the Apostolic Church. I did not find an Iota in His Grace’s article that support your claim
You are correct; His Eminence does not support my claim at all, and in fact directly contradicts it. I didn’t reference his article for the sake of supporting my claim, but rather to provide people with the position of a Church authority on the matter, since I am no authority myself.
I don’t regard Bishops to be infallible (especially when they do not speak with consensus), and I would personally consider myself to be in a reasonable position to hold belief against His Eminence on this particular issue since my belief was carefully discerned with much consideration and research. Though I know of no present day Coptic Bishop who supports my (what I would call quite a moderate) position on eschatology (but then again, I have only heard the opinion of 2 bishops on this matter), I can refer to a Bishop of the Indian Orthodox Church who recently passed away – His Grace Paulos Mar Gregorios – who supports this position. He is the author of many scholarly works and was a key figure, just like His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy, in Ecumenical dialogues with other Church’s including the EO’s and the Roman Catholics. So out of the 3 OO Bishops I have heard on this matter, 2 contradict me, and one supports me. I can further confidently assert that many Bishops and Patriarchs of our Church from the patristic era, support my position. The fact His Eminence does not engage with the Fathers in his article is something that I would personally consider to be a major flaw of his article. He manages to employ the Fathers a great deal on other issues, such as Christology; so I was dissapointed that he did not engage with them on this issue.
I hope however you respect my decision to not argue my position, and to leave it at that, simply because I believe this to be the wrong forum with the wrong sort of audience to argue this very sensitive concept; it requires much spiritual and intellectual maturity, which though I confidently believe yourself and Stavro have, many others do not have.
You know Safaa, that I have a major issue with people going against Church authority, but that is not because I believe rejecting a Bishop’s opinion on a matter is per se always wrong (especially when there is no apparent consensus), but rather because many are simply not in a position to do it – they would rather reject a Bishop’s opinion out of ignorance, pride, or even just plain stupidity – I don’t think the basis of my position on this issue is any of that. If we are to recognise that Bishops are indeed not infallible (i.e. to recognise this as a practical reality and not to just pay lip service to it), then we can agree that they can fall into doctrinal error (and no this does not mean heresy – a word which is often misused), and I believe that my acquaintance with the Fathers (not only theologians and scholars of the Church, but figures who were in fact Bishops and Patriarchs), and the wider OO community, gives me reasonable grounds to reject what I would consider to be a mere theological opinion.
If there was a clear consensus amongst the OO Church regarding how to deal with the Patristic support for the matter of the possible salvation of those outside the canonical boundaries of the Church, that is a circumstance where I would put aside whatever position I believe to be true.
He is adamantly against the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the salvation of the unbelievers, their marriage to believers or administering to them the Eucharist.
At this point I must say that my belief on this soteriological issue is substantially different from that advocated by the RC Church – the latter seems to advocate a form of pluralism. I would not refer to the RC Church as precedent for my position; I would refer to His Grace, the late Paulos Mar Gregorios, certain Orthodox Fathers, and certain theologians of the EO Church.
I furthermore reject the idea of marriage to the unbelievers, and I also reject the idea of administering the Eucharist to the heteredox. Though with the issue of Eucharistic administration, I understand that the Church makes exceptions with the EO’s on certain occasions, as well as with the issue of the Sacrament of marriage.
There is no salvation outside the Church, Holy Sacraments, Baptism, Holy Unction, Confession, partaking of the Eucharist,....... you can read a book by HH Pope Shenouda III, title “ Salvation in the Orthodox Concept. “
Yes, I accept this, but it is the manner of interpreting it which is at issue. The only certain means of salvation here on earth is through the life-giving Sacraments of the Church, just as the only means for example of one being cured of a disease is the treatment given at a hospital. But nonetheless, God's Grace is not limited to Canonical boundaries; although the Church's Sacraments are the only means that we know of by which we can receive the Grace of God, God can still work His own way. It might seem reasonable that God's Grace operating outside of the Church works to bring those within the Church, but then again, He can bring those within the Church in His own mysterious way. There is a famous saying of Bishop Kallistos Ware of the EO Church, that goes, "We know where the Church is, but we do not know where the Church is not". I respect this notion, and find it to be well supported.
3- It is the Protestants who widely view salvation as only due to the grace of God, and we all know that is not what the loving Lord meant.
I think the problem with Protestants is their understanding of how this Grace is dispensed and how it operates. They deny that the Orthodox Church is the only place that we know of where God dispenses His Grace i.e. through Her life-giving Sacraments, and they furthermore have absurd notions regarding how this Grace operates and interacts with man.
Honestly, this was not an attack against for I have no hidden agenda or purpose for attacking you. You are a lovely person as well, a respected member on this site, and you always have something useful to contribute. I apologize if my post seemed aggressive and rude but my intentions were pure. However, I am a wicked sinner and I ask for your forgiveness and prayer always.
I’m sorry but I don’t think I understand your first 3 comments clearly so I will just express my opinion on this issue. Your comments read that our church the OO church is the only way for one to be saved, but as my best friend once told me “God is love and God will judge everyone fairly and justly.”
I do believe that the OO church is the right path, which is why I have accepted it in my heart and have not simply accepted it due to the fact that I was born into it. I know that the Coptic church is the right church for me and my salvation, but in the past few months I have seen the worst out of some Coptic orthodox people. I know that every church has bad people that are corrupt, but our church is different, it’s the right church as you and other have stated. So why is that that we don’t go and preach about the OO church like other sanctions do in order to get new converts to our church? On the contrary we exclude people when they come to our church and turn a blind eye towards them, the youth go to church most of the time to socialize with friends, and even the adults are power hungry people that turn church matters into political power, and there are many other examples. Which is why I am hesitant to believe that only OO are going to be saved, and it frustrates me when we condemn other churches.
I can understand and respect the article by Metropolitan Bishoy as well as your stance but I do not have to necessarily agree with either. Not because I’m stubborn but simply because God has always been merciful to me so I cannot comprehend that He will not be merciful to all His children that believe and are trying to have a close relationship with Him. Yet, believing on its own is not enough for one to be saved which is why the church is essential for ones growth in their spiritual life.
I read an article today by a priest in the Coptic church about the crippled man. It stated something that I thought was interesting and pretty relevant, “Christ said to the crippled man, “do you want”? (John 5:6) Yes, Lord, I want. In Christianity, there is simplicity; there is no obligation or complex philosophies, but only very simple words: “Do you want?”’
Again I apologize Safaa for my previous post and I am very proud to see the zeal and passion you have for our church.
It was very sad reading through this thread as a Catholic. As Catholics we can stand for what we believe in and we know what we believe in, non the less we are taught to Love Coptics and Orthodox Christians as brothers, since our similarities are what bind us together, and this most of us Catholics practice. We advice Catholics to attend the Orthodox or Coptic Church when they dont find any Catholic Church near them, we are taught that the you are supposed to be more friendlier and familiar to us than other Churches, but today i have seen that you do not share the same mind to us as we do to you, we aproach you with love but you aproach us with a differences and hate.
I had the wrong idea about Coptics and Orthodox being our brothers in Christ n this is because i was mislead and taught to Love Coptics and Orthox alike as brothers in Christ.
Comments
I tell you, neither Orthodoxy or catholicism is the true faith. The true faith is faith that comes from your heart.
The inherent deficiency in other religioins is the isolation of God from his creation, the lack of consistency in the built up to their theology. The reason is the fact that it is the product of humans.
What do you think about Islam, for example ? The fact that you know that your brother wants something, because he told you so, does not make you identical and one and the same with your brother. I am not sure what denomination or religion you follow, but if you are christian , you must consider the Bible authoritive and the spoken words of God. God revealed to us his intention through the Bible, and for Orthodox, we know how to study it because of the Apostolic Tradition. What you propose here is actually a form of a heresy called Pluralism. True, that is why we have to work relentless on our salvation but I have a big chance of salvation which other have chosen to ignore by rejecting the Orthodox faith and not seeking God. As such, they have no chance of salvation no matter what personal morals they have. How did you come to such conclusion, and where did you find any reference to it in Tradition or even by common sense. WHat if your heart tells you to kill and worship idols ?
I do not believe that the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the people on this forum, have presented any wrong information about the roman catholic church.If there are any dogma that you feel were misrepresented , please advise.My response:
Someone said something about Catholism that was against its Doctrine, and I attempted to explain that that is not what Catholics believe.
This is what they said:
"hey
im sure someone may have said this, but i didn't read all the above; two major differences:
1 catholics don't believe in the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary
2 they believe in two natures of Jesus Christ"
People, please realize no one religion or denomination is the best.
You said:
I believe that it is you that has to realize that religioin is not an ideology or the current best approach to knowing God, buit it sht etruth revelaed by God through his only begotten Son who realized the prophecies of the OT and made the new convenant, offering salvation to everybody.
The inherent deficiency in other religioins is the isolation of God from his creation, the lack of consistency in the built up to their theology. The reason is the fact that it is the product of humans.
My response:
Good points. However, religion IS ideology in nature. You are confusing ideology with its double meaning. You think that ideology is : The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture whereas I see ideology as: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system. Two definitions, same dictionary, same word.
You asked:
What do you think about Islam, for example ?
My response:
Islam would go with the first definition of ideology. I see nothing of praising God, only praising man.
You said:
The fact that you know that your brother wants something, because he told you so, does not make you identical and one and the same with your brother.
My response:
Eh...what does this have to do with my post? I am sorry but I do not understand where you were going with this.
You said:
I am not sure what denomination or religion you follow, but if you are christian , you must consider the Bible authoritive and the spoken words of God. God revealed to us his intention through the Bible, and for Orthodox, we know how to study it because of the Apostolic Tradition. What you propose here is actually a form of a heresy called Pluralism.
My response:
So you shall excommunicate me as well? Why did everyone's view of Genesis as Literal change to Figurative after the discoveries of Fossils? I'm not saying I don't believe in the Bible. Nor am I saying it is NOT authoritative. What I am saying is that I have never been in any of the settings depicted in the Bible nor have you. I just have scriptures and I'm told that its from God. Does it affect my faith? People THINK it does. But it absolutely does NOT. It does, however, make me think that God has a lot more mercy than people do not give him credit for.
You said:
True, that is why we have to work relentless on our salvation but I have a big chance of salvation which other have chosen to ignore by rejecting the Orthodox faith and not seeking God. As such, they have no chance of salvation no matter what personal morals they have.
My response:
So you will enter Heaven before a Catholic person will? Doesn't this remind you of the people who persecuted Christ? Their confidence for the True Faith? And whose fault is it if hypothetically an Orthodox Christian enters Heaven before a Catholic? The Catholic? Or the Orthodox Christian who didn't speak a word about his religion to him? OH but what if he DOESNT want to accept Orthodoxy. Maybe because they are too confused to decide what the True Faith really is, given so much tradition in the Orthodox Faith. (I'll get into this more into detail later)
You responded when I said "true faith comes from the heart:"
How did you come to such conclusion, and where did you find any reference to it in Tradition....etc.
My response: Let us just stop there with that word. I know Deacons in my Church who fear for their lives if they mess up with a certain chant or response in the Altar. Is it for fear that God might be displeased? No it is fear from Abouna, or the Deacon Conductor. Or worse, what the congregation will think of them. What does that tell you? I'm not gonna explain it because you should really get this on your own. The people who crucified our beloved Christ were worshipping tradition moreso than what they were supposed to worship. They let their Jewish Orthodox traditions be their steering wheel, and the final jurisdiction in everything God-related. Let me revise what I wrote to make it more clear, True faith is faith that comes from the heart, that comes from the truth you receive from the Bible. Not the Coptic Orthodox Church. Not the Infallible Pope. Not the Bishops. Not even the Catholic Diocese. The Bible, that is literally God in writing.
And you ask if I am Coptic Orthodox or Catholic.
1. Catholics take crackers for communion, not bread.
2. They don't take off their shoes in communion.
3. They have girl deacons.
4. Their prayers are different from ours.
5. They baptize different.
6. I doubt that they have Myron.
7. They allow dating.
8. They confess in a weird way; you don't look at the priest so that way it makes it easier.
9. They have Ash Wednesday.
10. They have to give up ONE thing during the whole fast.
11. They go to church like every Wednesday for confirmation.
[glow=red,2,300]
I hope that's enough to help out.
love lots,
CopticChica21[/glow]
I am of course Coptic Orthodox, baptized even by a Bishop. but I will not hear one more word from anyone in my church about how Catholics will never be saved and how Coptic Orthodoxy is the true faith. Everyone coptic believes this, I think.
Whether you are baptized by a bishop or by the Apostle Mark himself does not give you any more credibility than anyone on this site, unless you can back up the information you just mentioned with a logical scheme that justifies your position.
What you presented is simply wrong, for when a Church like the roman catholic church is in schism with the Orthodox Church, and when they embrace heresies that attack the very nature of the Trinity and each Godhead like the Filioque, when they embrace heresies like Papal Infallability attacking salvation at its core and believe in Roman Supremacy that attacks the Church as the Body of Christ altogether, then the only logical conclusion from all the facts that they are not part of the Church.
A Church is defined by communion, and by being one in the Body of Christ. Salvation is through the sacraments. RC are not in communion with us and this simply puts them outside the Church.No salvation outside the Church as many Orthodox Fathers and bishops have taught us. That is beside the point, for the two definitions do not qualify as a definition for Christianity that is neither a set of ideas nor a set of doctrines, it is simply the truth. Ideology has a human element in its definition, something not applicable to Christianity. When you say that no religion is better than another,no denomination has the truth exclusively, then I must question your logic in reaching such conclusion.
Christianity is the truth revealed by God. Man could have never captured nor understood the mystery of God in its fullest sense if not for the incarnation and the revelation of the way of salvation through the Cross. The faith, which is not only a set of dogmas but rather a life of worship through a true belief, was delivered by the Apostles. Even the blessed Apostles had no addition to the faith. As such, to come to such a conclusion as you did you must challenge this fact. If you do, then there is no basis for discussion because we have different references.
If we agree on the above, then I wonder again how do you consider many denominations acceptable when they have huge differences in their faith. Only one denomination must have survived the heresies and continued as the truthful Church, loyal to the truth delivered by the Apostles. This is the Orthodox Church (Coptic, Syrian, Indian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eriterian) and exclusively those. The Chalcedonian fell into heresy in 451 a.d., the latins (roman catholics) continued the heresies after the Photian schism and then decisively embraced their heresies in 1054 a.d., followed by a series of heresies, and the Protestants are 20,000 "churches" each with different heresy at the core of their faith.
One Church survived and it is the Orthodox Church, according to the promise given by the Lord that the gates of Hell will not overcome the one true Church. This is an informed reply, and this makes my point even more clear, for then your opinion about no religion being better than the other will be void and wrong.
It was a simple illustration to show the fault in your argument. You claim nobody can actually judge another faith for this will make this person like God. Because God has revealed the truth to us through the Tradition by his Only begotten Son, we are (and in fact it is our duty) to judge any faith. "Test the spirit" says the Apostle John.
It is not speculations nor fortune telling, it is simply taking the Apostolic Faith as our standard to measure any ideas against. I have no such authority, nor do I care about your personal views. I just think the youth on this forum deserve a chance to know the truth without having their thoughts polluted with advocates of the "group-hug"mentality. - Nobody persecuted the Rc fellows, and if you ever have a chance to read history, you will find out that the Orthodox have been persecuted severely by the Chalcedonians of which the Rc are part and have been plotted against by the Rc missionary.
- If you are not confident of the true faith, and if you are in a search for the true faith, then we can pray for you. But you have to come to terms with your situation. You either know that Orthodoxy is the true faith and the unaltered Truth delivered by the Apostles, and as such your journey for the true faith ends here, or you continue searching. That's also acceptable, but do not present your findings as the absolute truth when you yourself still lacks the understanding of it.
- I am afraid the analogy you just mentioned does not hold, and is a result of an amputated and surface scratching reading of history. Those who persecuted the Lord were driven by their own greed, by their own carnal lusts and by a blind zeal that cannot discern the truth. If you still hold to this analogy, then you must consider Orthodoxy to be something else other than the whole truth. If that is what you believe, I encourage you to start a search for the true faith so that you can believe for yourself instead of following somebody who told you so. This is by far better than being caught in the middle, between a faith that you do not have full confidence in and between what is out there.
Many of us have been through this phase. I believe this is irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever personal grievances you have against individuals in the Church, whether justified or not, does not amount to a dogmatic position or a formula about the faith. Everybody have the Bible, and everybody can make the Bible say whatever he/she wants the Bible to say. My understanding, your understanding and anybody's understanding of the Bible is irrelevant to the Faith.
What is important is what the Apostles understood and how they intended their writings to be understood. That is what is called Tradition (capital C), and it is something totally different than tradition. Sola Scriptura is a stupid and ignorant invention of Luther, Calvin & co. that did not even stand the test of its own definition.
You can consult the Southern Coptic Orthodox Diocese website for more information. You will find it under the "literature"section.
On the other hand, the individual who claims absolute certainty that his fellow brother will not enter God's kingdom is as foolish as the individual who claims that he will, with absolute certainty enter the kingdom of Heaven. For the moment an individual has made such an emphatic claim, he has lost site of the means by which to enter God's eternal kingdom. He has placed Himself in the role of Divine judge and executioner.
Therefore as the church fathers have often claimed, it is reasonable to declare that the embracement of false doctrine prohibits one from truly knowing Christ, thus from entering the kingdom of Heaven. Nevertheless, it is unconscionable to claim that any established peoples will most certainly not enter the kingdom of Heaven. For such a privilege of claim is reserved for the Lord Himself and for no other. Such a privilege would pre-require that we completely absorb the person of God in all His glorious omniscience.
We are called to judge upon every issue, ideology, conception doctrine and spiritual truth that emanates from man.....but are never called to judge men themselves. I personally cannot say whether Catholics will or will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. It is not an eluding or weak response to declare an uncertainty in regard to issues that pervade our logical processes and limited perspectival observances. For we neither hold reasonable scope nor reasonable calculation when it comes to discerning the salvivic prosperity of any man. We are simply in no position to dictate to others what the foreboding wisdom of the Father's omniscient nature has found veracous.
God bless.
may the Lord be with you. I enjoyed the discussion with you, and I have made the points I wanted to emphasize by commenting on the good points you made.
As you mentioned Vatican II, I must comment that even conservative Catholics may have problems with this council and the approach it took to other religions.Catholics, after this council, actually give communion to non-believers and administer the sacraments to them. If you read through the acts of this council or the dogmatic position on which they based their NEW practice, you will find that it embraces a Universalist heresy in its magnified form to develop this dogma. While the catholic apologists can eloquently play around the obvious heresy in their practices and dogmas, they cannot escape the fact that the real reason for such development in dogma was to embrace everyone from every religion under the RC church umbrella. It is so political.
Sacraments have no effect without faith, and in fact a person who is unworthy takes punishment and judgment for himself. The fact that RC believers can take communion in the Orthodox Church does not mean they will have access to the grace. First, because they do not have the right faith, and second, Orthodox priests do not allow them to take communion in their churches. If they believe in the Orthodox dogmas and reject their own, then why not convert to orthodoxy and become a member in the Body of the Lord with full access to communion as the rest ?
In any case, it was a nice discussion.
Gmankbadi, That is I believe a great phrase that summarizes my position but I allow to point out the contradiction with the obvious contradiction with the before mentioned phrase: I judged the faith, and not the actions and sins of the person. You would be absolutely right had I said that a "SINNER" will be cast in hell no matter what. But I did not do that, I judged the faith as practiced, as articulated by the others and in the light of our own standards. I acknowledge that many muslims, Buddists, Seaks, Hindos are better than myself, yet is salvation by deeds and works only ?
If so, I wonder why Abraham, David, Joseph and all the prophets and righteous man of the OT were in hell before the coming of Christ. It is because of the lack of atonement for their sins, whatever these sins were.
Salvation HAS to go through the Cross, there is no other way around it. Let me explain it to you in simple terms as Anba Youssef has explained it to me to correct mistakes in my understanding of salvation.
In the old testament, when David sinned, Nathan the prophet told him that his sin was "removed" , but not forgiven. It is because for a sin to be forgiven, it has to be carried by Christ the Lord and the price has to be paid by Him. It is therefore that Abraham rejoiced in the coming of the Lord, and David was eager for His coming, and Isaiah was anticipating his incarnation because they know that there is no other way for salvation. All of them landed in Hell, the very righteous men of the OT. It is also a sign that you cannot be a sinner whose sins are not washed by the Cross and end up in the kingdom of heaven. Wouldn't Abraham be more worthy ?
So the next step is to exmaine the access of the unbelievers to the salvic powers of the Cross. If we understand the sacrament of Confession and Eucharist correctly, there would be no need to.
The OT oferings were the image of the Cross. The jewish sinner used to make offering by confessing his sin to the priest who transmits it by putting his hand on the offering to the lamb itself that is then slaughtered instead of the sinner.
It is exactly the same on the Cross, with the symbolic lamb being replaced by Christ the Lord, and the sins being carried by the Lord on the Cross.
How do you relate to the Cross, an event that is 2000 years distant ? ONLY through the Eucharist. We firmly believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is ONE and the SAME of Christ that was offered on the Cross. The priest takes your sins through the confession and PUTS them on the Body of Christ in the liturgy, and so your sins are washed and are hanged on the Cross with Christ.
It troubles me greatly when people take the Eucharist because they are told so or because it makes them feel good or for whatever reason.
As such, unbelievers have SADLY no access to the Eucharist and are therefore not saved. Their sins stand as they are and they perish with it. I am not saying this with triumph or with cold blood, and I know it really hurts many because some of our relatives and friends might be under the same yoke, but truth is truth. God is not sitting on a throne deciding where everybody is headed, so I am not assuming anybody's role. God has revealed to us the truth, and the most important if not the core of it is salvation. There is no speculation on matters so important and to say WE DO NOT KNOW whether unbelievers will perish or not is a result of a group-hug mentality and false ecumenism that has prevailed in our cultures and has now infiltrated the Church, but has no place in our faith.
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis that one can judge doctrine....and if your intention is to judge doctrine, then I apologize for any misconception I may have held. Many religions have indeed prevailed in moralistic progress yet fall far from any prevalence to eternality and everlasting life. In fact, Christ did not come into this world to bestow upon us moral values, but rather eternal life--Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges God's grace above man's works.
By the same token, Catholicism should not be placed on the same borderline as other world religions. There doctrine is not substantially heretical, rather it is implicativley inaccurate. (However, many a reader will disagree upon this point. Yet, I ask such readers to consider to themsleves the following question; if every nation, tribe and tounge will stand stamped with God's name upon their "foreheads" (Rev 7:9), what does this entail for all those who been converted to Christ through Catholicism?) Whether or not such inaccuracy ramificates into eternal damnation for the Catholic Church is solely up to God's judgment, even beyond our rational speculation. Thus, I speak nothing further in regard to this matter.
I completely agree. We may speak boldly in saying that those who trail against God and His commandments--manifested in Christian Orthodoxy--will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. However, there are many believers of the right way, who will lose their sight on this path of righteous countenance; who will unfortunately fall into perpetual perdition. There are also many who, currently far from God, will return in glorious splendor to their share in Christ's mercy and salvation. Therefore, you may adamantly preach that WE KNOW that unbelievers who remain obstinate to God will perish, yet you may not say WE KNOW unbelievers, presently living, will perish. For only one with absolute foreknowledge of the future can make such a claim, yet even Our Lord reserved that right for the Father in Heaven.
I hope I have clarified my position more definitively.
God bless you.
love lots,
CopticChica21
What do you think? Does God's mercy extend to those who, through no fault of their own, are not within the boundaries of the true Church? Are we in a position to say who is damned and who not? Would not we who read and write in this forum be in for a shock if we died only to find out we have been in the "wrong" Church if God had no mercy for the ignorant?
No, before you all start screaming that I have said something blasphemous, settle down and think. Every sincere Christian (or even Muslim, for that matter) is doing what she or he thinks God expects. Yet all of us have been conditioned into believing what we have been taught. I say, with the Lord, "To whom much is given, much is required." If you believe you are in the true Church, you have the duty to follow Jesus and to "bless those that curse you" and stop saying silly things about other people's traditions about which you have very little real knowledge.
Stay true to the teachings of the Church and pray for all people that we will obtain God's mercy together. Do these thoughts make me a heretic?
In addition, how would you abrogate the Cross and deliver salvation to those who do not believe in the salvic power of the Cross or have access to it ? This is the real question without the need to beat around the bush with rhetorical questions. Yes, we are in such position and the Church has always maintained this. We do not judge actions, we judge the faith. WHat you are advocating here is a inconsistent cultural theory, political in its very core, group-hug mentality that finds no reference in scripture as explained in the light of Tradition. Examine the condemnation of Arius by Nicea, Nestorius by Ephesus and many other smaller cases of heresy in which a person was condemned for his faith to be outside the salvic power of the Cross. If you are not sure of your faith, then it is not faith to begin with and the question is indeed void of any truth. I, after searching, am sure 100 % that only Orthodoxy can save the person. Not because God requires me to spell out some dogmas and do some works, but because my sins are washed through the sacraments and I am sanctified and justified by faith and works.
To answer such question, we have to agree on common references first, if we are to have a descent discussion. If it will be my word against yours, then why don't we save ourselves the trouble and let everybody be content with what he believes. To stay true to the teachings of the Church is indeed a blessed call, yet when the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the sacraments, and heretics cannot be saved, it is truly a contradiction to believe otherwise yet proclaim to be true to the Church.
Heretic or not does not concern anybody in the moment. We are not discussing persons but rather ideas.
do not believe that anybody here advocated killing anybody for his beliefs and thanks God our great Church legacy has no such incidents in its history. In fact, we were on the receiving end of such massacres.
But unless you explain how this relates to our discussion, and unless you go and read my posts and those of gmankabadi and Roni to make your point of view in relation to the topic, I am inclined to stop posting on this topic.
You might wonna belief that there is hope for unbelievers who die unbelievers, and you can hope as much as you want, but it does not change from the fact that this has no place in Christianity. In fact, this is a very heresy condemned by the Church called Universalism and Pluralism. Truth always has such effects. Try to define fundamentalism first. It means to go back to the fundamentals. Because religion is not an ideology or current best approach, but it is the truth revealed by the Apostles to the Church, you would have to go to the fundamentals to begin understanding any religion.
Is that what you are attacking, this fundamental aproach to matters or did you mix it up with political fundamentalism like in the Republic Party in the US who gave fundamentalism a bad name ?
My political views are socialist, by the way, and I believe politics to be evolving to suit the people needs in different places and times. But I adopt fundamentalism as I defined it above when it comes to dogmatic and religious matters. This is the way I became a believer (i.e. Orthodox). No, we should not, but again this is totally irrelevent to the discussion here. I am afraid you are attacking a strawman here. You assume that we advocate killing others, and I do not believe this point is made by anybody.
In addition, how would you abrogate the Cross and deliver salvation to those who do not believe in the salvic power of the Cross or have access to it ? This is the real question without the need to beat around the bush with rhetorical questions. Stavro are u saying that just because they were born into another religion they are going to hell. Didnt Jesus die on the cross for the sin of all people even the faithless.
Dioscorus supported Eutyches, Who was a heretic according to the Byzantines & the Romans. Not getting into who's right or not the copts are heretics for the Romans and greeks and Romans and Greeks are heritics for the copts, and of course, the greeks and romans call each other hereitics. But can anyone say where God stands in all this? Each member of each church only belive what he or she has been told to believe.
I recommend you that you read a book by Fr. V.C. Samuel titled "Chalcedon Re-examined". In case you do not have the time, you might consider the following:
- Pope St. Dioscoros (I appreciate if you refer to him as Dioscoros of Alexandria as this is a coptic site in which we held our saints in utmost respect) never accepted Eutychus while his case was invistigated. I praise the Lord that He has given this great saint the wisdom to avoid falling into heresy and never accepting a man under council condemnation into communion. After the council of Ephesus II, Eutychus was exonerated and he was part of the Church.
- The charge of heresy against St. Dioscoros,defender of faith, was brought later in history as part of the strawman polemics that the Byzantines followed to cover their own Nestorian heresy. The fact remains, St. Dioscoros, even against his archenemies Leo of Rome and Anatolios of COnstaninople, as well as Theodret, Ibas, Eusebius and the rest of the nestorian party was never condemned of heresy in Chalcedon. Read the acts of the council to make an educated argument first before listing the "hearsay" arguments. So, on what basis do you make such stupid claim ?
- Please show us any teachings of St. Dioscoros that are heretical and prove to us that they are, for there is no single word that the great Dioscoros said that is not included in one form or another in the faith of Cyril. Whatever denomination you follow, you cannot condemn St. Cyril unless you are Assyrian.
- It is most interesting that in the council of Chalcedon, the council that exonerated Nestorians and condemned the Orthodox, St Dioscoros has said that if Eutychus actually held any heresy, let him be cast in Hell, but the issue was never the protection of the Orthodox faith in this robber synod of Chalcedon but it was an agenda by the Chalcedonians to embrace Nestorianism and Papal Infallaibility and Roman Supremacy. Both heresies proved lethal to the Chalcedonians in later centuries. Yes, we can, by taking the Apostolic faith as our standard and by possessing enough common sense (and being literate of course) to conclude the right . It seems that you are a confused fellow who is lost between all these Protestant denominations and anti-christian groups , having no solid foundation into the faith, and as such you decide to embrace everything as valid. I am not sure about you, but this is simply not true for us Orthodox. It is the experience of worship as orthodox steadfast in the Apostolic faith that makes us different and makes us truly grasp the pearls of the faith. A faith is proven by hardships, and there is no other Church (or faith, religion) that has passed through tribulation in the magnitude and power like our Church, and here we are while all our enemies perished. Come on, stop these childish techniques and actually read my post. Those who rejected the faith perish. That includes everyone outside the Orthodox Church, and there is no other consistent view that could be given without logical flaws except the one I presented, because it is the Apostles' faith. Go back and read the Bible. He gave the chance for everybody to be saved, and people will chose to reject him and will perish. Salvation is for everybody, but not everybody will accept the salvation for they deny the faith.
What you are advocating is Universalism and Pluralism.
In the end, I do not find any motive to continue discussion for the sake of having the last word. It is not interesting if you keep repeating the same vague and empty words without any support from any source. If you struggle with your faith, we will pray for you, but do not present your cconfusions as a form of dogma or truth when it is not.
You use the term Orthodox alot but what u may like to over look the orthodox churches are not unified.
and what faith did u follow before u became Orthodox?
“ He said to him, `I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant! “ Luke 19:22
“ And whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.: Matthew 5:22
“ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
10: nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6
In the Coptic Orthodox Faith, theology is the way of life, you can not separate theology from faith, both goes together. Our understanding of God is the way that lead the believers to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
I would agree with the notion that "there is no salvation outside of the Church", but I would disagree with some with respect to how this is to be interpreted. It does not mean that God cannot save people outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church, or even that there can be no one outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church who may be saved, but rather, the statement in question simply affirms that the only vehicle and certain means for salvation here on earth is the Church.
What I advocate is not universalism, since it does not dictate that everyone, those within and those outside of the Church, will be saved; nor is it pluralism, since even though I may acknowledge the possibility that a person outside of the Church may be saved, I nonetheless affirm that their possible ultimate salvation is achieved in spite of their faith, and not strictly because of their works, but rather it is achieved according to their interaction with, and response to the Grace of God that operates throughout the whole world. The difference between the Grace that exists within the Church (i.e. that which we receive through the Sacraments) and that which exists outside of the Church, is that the former operates from within the believer, whilst the latter operates from without.
My view comes after much study of Biblical exegesis and patristics, so it is not emotionally motivated, nor do I have a group-hug mentality. It is understandable however that these issues would be up for debate considering the fact there has been no clear consensus on this matter since the inception of the Church, as well as the fact that the Church has yet to pass any dogmatic judgments on these issues.
http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Catholics/The Salvation of Non.doc
I read the article by His Grace Metropolitan Bishop Pishoy, and I am really troubled by your assertion that there might be a chance for an unbeliever to obtain salvation outside the Apostolic Church. I did not find an Iota in His Grace’s article that support your claim, I hope I am wrong and did not understand you correctly. I understand that the Grace of God can reach to any person who sincerely seeks Him from his/her heart, but God in His eternal wisdom will guide that person to be saved through His Church, St. Paul. This is because God dose not deny Himself and He is always in consistence of His words. I also has an audio of His Grace that he delivered to the annual conference of the Church’s Servants in the Diocese of Al- Fayoum, Egypt regarding this subject. He is adamantly against the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the salvation of the unbelievers, their marriage to believers or administering to them the Eucharist.
With all do respect and I’m sorry to change the topic, but why is that you always seem to think that a person will only be saved through the church? I find your claim to be quiet troubling due to the fact that God is merciful and loving. I do believe that our church the “Coptic” church is the right path for me and my salvation but I am not ignorant or oblivious to the fact that there are other churches out there that worship the same God that I do. The problem I see is that when we start discussing theology, the church fathers, and other churches we get too caught up in the technical differences and we forget the bigger broader one, that God is love.
Catholics have significantly different doctrines and beliefs then what our church holds but does that mean that they will not be saved simply by the virtue that they are not baptized in our “Coptic” church? Is pope John Paul going to be condemned to eternal hell for being catholic? If that’s the case then heaven will truly be very empty.
I might have not understood your response but when I read “church” in your response then I assumed you were talking about the Coptic church and not the general Christian churches. If my assumption was wrong then please forgive me for I am a sinner.
However, if you were referring to all churches in general then again that raises problems for me as well. My God is omniscient, and I will not trouble myself and second guess the destiny and fate of others. God does work in mysterious ways and if a person truly found their salvation then they will take it upon themselves to find the truth and in doing so they will see that the church is essential for their salvation. However, if they did not reach that stage yet then God will decide their fate and I will not label them as condemned to hell.
In His Name
I usually do not respond to attack against me because I feel it speaks volume about the attackers and it is up tp him/her to be aggressive. But in this case, I was taken by your harsh words, knowing that you are lovely person with joyful heart, I will reply to your attack.
1- I never mentioned Coptic Church in my previous post, though it would be true, but on the contrary mentioned Apostolic Church.
2- There is no salvation outside the Church, Holy Sacraments, Baptism, Holy Unction, Confession, partaking of the Eucharist,....... you can read a book by HH Pope Shenouda III, title “ Salvation in the Orthodox Concept. “
3- It is the Protestants who widely view salvation as only due to the grace of God, and we all know that is not what the loving Lord meant. 4- This is the fourth page of discussing pure theology, why just attacking me !!!!!, there was hundreds of posts before mine one taking about theology
5- I was referring to what Iqbal posted before.
I hope you forgive me Mary.
I don’t regard Bishops to be infallible (especially when they do not speak with consensus), and I would personally consider myself to be in a reasonable position to hold belief against His Eminence on this particular issue since my belief was carefully discerned with much consideration and research. Though I know of no present day Coptic Bishop who supports my (what I would call quite a moderate) position on eschatology (but then again, I have only heard the opinion of 2 bishops on this matter), I can refer to a Bishop of the Indian Orthodox Church who recently passed away – His Grace Paulos Mar Gregorios – who supports this position. He is the author of many scholarly works and was a key figure, just like His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy, in Ecumenical dialogues with other Church’s including the EO’s and the Roman Catholics. So out of the 3 OO Bishops I have heard on this matter, 2 contradict me, and one supports me. I can further confidently assert that many Bishops and Patriarchs of our Church from the patristic era, support my position. The fact His Eminence does not engage with the Fathers in his article is something that I would personally consider to be a major flaw of his article. He manages to employ the Fathers a great deal on other issues, such as Christology; so I was dissapointed that he did not engage with them on this issue.
I hope however you respect my decision to not argue my position, and to leave it at that, simply because I believe this to be the wrong forum with the wrong sort of audience to argue this very sensitive concept; it requires much spiritual and intellectual maturity, which though I confidently believe yourself and Stavro have, many others do not have.
You know Safaa, that I have a major issue with people going against Church authority, but that is not because I believe rejecting a Bishop’s opinion on a matter is per se always wrong (especially when there is no apparent consensus), but rather because many are simply not in a position to do it – they would rather reject a Bishop’s opinion out of ignorance, pride, or even just plain stupidity – I don’t think the basis of my position on this issue is any of that. If we are to recognise that Bishops are indeed not infallible (i.e. to recognise this as a practical reality and not to just pay lip service to it), then we can agree that they can fall into doctrinal error (and no this does not mean heresy – a word which is often misused), and I believe that my acquaintance with the Fathers (not only theologians and scholars of the Church, but figures who were in fact Bishops and Patriarchs), and the wider OO community, gives me reasonable grounds to reject what I would consider to be a mere theological opinion.
If there was a clear consensus amongst the OO Church regarding how to deal with the Patristic support for the matter of the possible salvation of those outside the canonical boundaries of the Church, that is a circumstance where I would put aside whatever position I believe to be true. At this point I must say that my belief on this soteriological issue is substantially different from that advocated by the RC Church – the latter seems to advocate a form of pluralism. I would not refer to the RC Church as precedent for my position; I would refer to His Grace, the late Paulos Mar Gregorios, certain Orthodox Fathers, and certain theologians of the EO Church.
I furthermore reject the idea of marriage to the unbelievers, and I also reject the idea of administering the Eucharist to the heteredox. Though with the issue of Eucharistic administration, I understand that the Church makes exceptions with the EO’s on certain occasions, as well as with the issue of the Sacrament of marriage. Yes, I accept this, but it is the manner of interpreting it which is at issue. The only certain means of salvation here on earth is through the life-giving Sacraments of the Church, just as the only means for example of one being cured of a disease is the treatment given at a hospital. But nonetheless, God's Grace is not limited to Canonical boundaries; although the Church's Sacraments are the only means that we know of by which we can receive the Grace of God, God can still work His own way. It might seem reasonable that God's Grace operating outside of the Church works to bring those within the Church, but then again, He can bring those within the Church in His own mysterious way. There is a famous saying of Bishop Kallistos Ware of the EO Church, that goes, "We know where the Church is, but we do not know where the Church is not". I respect this notion, and find it to be well supported. I think the problem with Protestants is their understanding of how this Grace is dispensed and how it operates. They deny that the Orthodox Church is the only place that we know of where God dispenses His Grace i.e. through Her life-giving Sacraments, and they furthermore have absurd notions regarding how this Grace operates and interacts with man.
As I said, I will leave it at that.
Honestly, this was not an attack against for I have no hidden agenda or purpose for attacking you. You are a lovely person as well, a respected member on this site, and you always have something useful to contribute. I apologize if my post seemed aggressive and rude but my intentions were pure. However, I am a wicked sinner and I ask for your forgiveness and prayer always.
I’m sorry but I don’t think I understand your first 3 comments clearly so I will just express my opinion on this issue. Your comments read that our church the OO church is the only way for one to be saved, but as my best friend once told me “God is love and God will judge everyone fairly and justly.”
I do believe that the OO church is the right path, which is why I have accepted it in my heart and have not simply accepted it due to the fact that I was born into it. I know that the Coptic church is the right church for me and my salvation, but in the past few months I have seen the worst out of some Coptic orthodox people. I know that every church has bad people that are corrupt, but our church is different, it’s the right church as you and other have stated. So why is that that we don’t go and preach about the OO church like other sanctions do in order to get new converts to our church? On the contrary we exclude people when they come to our church and turn a blind eye towards them, the youth go to church most of the time to socialize with friends, and even the adults are power hungry people that turn church matters into political power, and there are many other examples. Which is why I am hesitant to believe that only OO are going to be saved, and it frustrates me when we condemn other churches.
I can understand and respect the article by Metropolitan Bishoy as well as your stance but I do not have to necessarily agree with either. Not because I’m stubborn but simply because God has always been merciful to me so I cannot comprehend that He will not be merciful to all His children that believe and are trying to have a close relationship with Him. Yet, believing on its own is not enough for one to be saved which is why the church is essential for ones growth in their spiritual life.
I read an article today by a priest in the Coptic church about the crippled man. It stated something that I thought was interesting and pretty relevant, “Christ said to the crippled man, “do you want”? (John 5:6) Yes, Lord, I want. In Christianity, there is simplicity; there is no obligation or complex philosophies, but only very simple words: “Do you want?”’
Again I apologize Safaa for my previous post and I am very proud to see the zeal and passion you have for our church.
In His Name
I had the wrong idea about Coptics and Orthodox being our brothers in Christ n this is because i was mislead and taught to Love Coptics and Orthox alike as brothers in Christ.