It seems a great deal of the fathers beleived there is no salvation outside the One True Church.
"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (251 AD)
"Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism" . (256 AD)
--St Cyprian, honored in Coptic, Greek, Syrian, and Latin Churches
"We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (393 AD)
--St Augustine, honored in Coptic, Greek, Syrian, and Latin Churches
"Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church. (524 AD)
--St Fulgentius, honored in Greek and Latin Churches
And there are countless other sayings of the fathers which state that there can be no salvation in a schismatic church, that is, one that is excommunicated from the One True Church, (commonly refered to by the fathers as the "Catholic Church.") By this definition, if the Coptic church is that "Catholic Church" that they talk about, then there is no hope of salvation even in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Indeed, a very large amount of Eastern Orthodox bishops consider us heretics and believe there is no salvation in our church. Many Latins feel the same way.
However, some will argue that those who are not "visibly" inside the true church, may be inside "invisibly," and thus have salvation. By this logic, I would think that those who are not "visibly" baptized or "visibly" receive Eucharist, or "visibly" beleive in Jesus Christ should also salvation: Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Protestants, Pagans, etc. Certainly this cannot be right! You must be "visibly" in the One True Church to have salvation.
My question is, why do you think the Oriental Orthodox Church is that One True Catholic Church? What makes you so sure that this is the True Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is not?
Comments
I think St Cyprian explianed it quite well it that they have seperated from the promises of faith. What they have done is to determine their own faith, so looking for their own promise.
Two; The two churches agreed and recognized that the other has held the fullness of the faith (I am talking EO and OO). Fr. Peter has done much work illustrating the fact that even the fathers saw the chalcedonian and non-chalcedonian split as an issue WITHIN the body of the church as opposed to seeing them as having a different faith as we would view protestants for example. Hence St. Severus' vehement rejection of those who would rechrismate those who had went over to the chalcedonian side.
Three; With the lack of patristic in the Coptic Orthodox Church and some hierarchs denying tenets of the faith propounded by great fathers such as St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Severus, St. Basil, etc. I think its not even reasonable to claim that we are 'more Orthodox' (whatever that means) than the EO. If anything I have a great deal for MANY modern EO theologians for being great students of the fathers.
"why do you think the Oriental Orthodox Church is that One True Catholic Church?"
Now about he Eastern Orthodox Church, i can't speak much about it for lack of knowledge but I do know that unifying with them will happen very soon.
Many Greeks beleive that Dioscorus and Severus were heretics. They think their church is the One True Church. And that is why many Greek bishops and monks, with ferverent zeal, have opposed union with our church. What makes you so convinced that our bishops were the ones that were right and not theirs?
Have you not read "the devil disguises himself as an angel of light"? Do you not realize that the Antichrist's church will be very similar to the true church?
Have you not read "the devil disguises himself as an angel of light"? Do you not realize that the Antichrist's church will be very similar to the true church?
The antichrist will much faster come with dissention where there needn't be. When there is room for brotherly love, acknowledging that we have both upheld the true faith, it is the Antichrist who would divide the church of Christ.
The one true church is the apostolic church that has held the true faith. Regardless of area or history. When we remove the anathemas, we will be fully united. Until then, causes of dissension are the truest sign of demonic interference with the will of God, "that we may be one."
These fervent monks oppose union because they are cautious of making a mistake. So should we, but this caution need not become phobia.
Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. Vain dissension is heresy
-A fool
We are not sure that the EO church is not the true church. It's not our job to decide that. Our job is to love, and perfect our theological understanding. if the EO do the same, I see no reason that they cannot be considered Orthodox.
Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe is in fact honored as a saint in the EO.
You say that our job is to love and perfect our theological understanding. The Protestants and Muslims say the same. How then can you say that they are not Orthodox.
Nay! Jesus told the bishops "He who receives you receives me; he who rejects you, rejects me." When the Greeks rejected the righteous Dioscorus from their church, it was God that they had rejected. And when Dioscorus cast out the wicked Flavian and Leo, it was the devil they cast out, just like Michael and his angels cast out the dragon and his angels. Ultimately, this is the only Orthodox view.
Unless of course, the OO is not the "One True Church"...
St Cyprian is saying that it doesnt matter how much they love or perfect theology. If they have rejected the bishops of the true church, they have rejected God! "He who is not with us is against us; he who does not gather with us, scatters abroad."
I think you are misinterpreting what I said. I'm not saying "as long as they are trying then they are Orthodox." I am saying that there is no need to remind ourselves and them of past shortcomings from both ends. Rather, we must analyze ourselves now, and see what we both believe.
And I know that he is honored in the EO, but since you are questioning the Orthodoxy of the EO, I was saying it is surprising that you would quote an EO to prove your point. It seems rather counter-intuitive to me. Maybe I am mistaken.
Orthodoxy begins and ends with love, because God is love, and we are in God, and God in us. So in that, we differ from Muslims. We also have correct theology. We need to love. Love does not call falsehood truth, so me and you agree there, but what I am saying is that love does not make reconciliation difficult. Claims of falsehood unsupported do just that, and so, are themselves unorthodox since they sow anger rather than reconciliation. And As Christ says, "He who does not gather with me scatters abroad."
Rejecting a man is not rejecting God. The Armenians had a problem with St. Severus and refused to commemorate him. The Copts had a problem with St. John Chrysostom and he was excommunicated. When we cast him out, we did not cast God out, but we only casted out a misunderstanding of a person. So if casting out a bishop meant casting out the faith, then we casted out Chrysostom, and so, we would have lost the faith as well. Sure we later accepted St. John, and so, one day, maybe the anathemas will be lifted. Let us pray for this day rather than burden each other with claims of heresy.
I would also rather that you did not call St. Leo and St. Flavian as wicked heretics. These are men heavily revered by our EO brothers and sisters. We must respect them. If you would like to be respectful but not giving in, then refrain from using things like "The Holy Dioscoros" or "The wicked Flavian" but chose to be neutral and academic. Say "Dioscoros of Alexandria" and "Flavian of Constantinople."
To say that something is "ultimatley the most Orthodox view" is to claim a monopoly on Orthodoxy, which neither you nor I can do. We must accept the evidence as it surfaces. To date, you have not presented evidence, yet you make a huge claim. You speak of fathers being anathemetized, but withhold speaking about the Christological controversy that actually happened. Once true theology is in place, then accusations will be overcome by factual accuracy, name calling will be overcome by respect, and blanket statements will be overcome by sensitive approaches to the others beliefs. Then, we may "attain a unity of faith, and knowledge of [God's] imperceptive and infinite glory." - conclusion of every hour.
If I offended, I apologize, I am a fool. I would also like to withdraw from this topic as I have said what I believe to be necessary.
RO
The EO have protected the faith of the fathers as well. We in the Coptic church have hierarchs teach the augustinian catholic understanding of original sin when St. Cyril, and St. Severus both outrightly deny it, we have hierarchs deny deification when it was St. Athanasius who championed it, we have hierarchs teach the penal substitution theory of the atonement when St. Ireneaus taught all about recapitulation and the renewal of humanity in Christ and with St. Athanasius expounding the true belief regarding salvation! I could say more but i will stop there. We have not safeguarded the faith of the fathers, so for you to look at the EO, WHO HAVE safeguarded the faith of the fathers, and to call them heretics, is offensive to me. Even though I am a Copt and have a great affection to the fathers, particularly the Alexandrian ones :), I have great respect for the EO and for many of their modern authors who have done alot for the faith in modern times and through whom the apostolic teaching is perpetuated.
You say that a virtuous and Orthodox life makes a person Orthodox. It doesnt matter whether he is Oriental or Eastern.
Why then do you feel that a Protestant, Atheist or Muslim living a virtuous and Orthodox life has no salvation? Why do they have to be baptized to be saved, so long as they are good people? Moreover, even though you may say that it was the ancient bishops who caused the schism, and not the modern bishops, the modern bishops refuse to reunite. They hold the same stance. As it is written, "I am avenging the iniquity of the fathers upon the children."
The two of you have given answers that are based on rejecting the teachings of St Cyprian and the other fathers who tell us that in any eschismed church there is no salvation. Why then do you criticize Protestants who also reject the teachings of the fathers?
Why then do you feel that a Protestant, Atheist or Muslim living a virtuous and Orthodox life has no salvation? Why do they have to be baptized to be saved, so long as they are good people?
The salvation topic is very touchy....whenever ANYONE (including the fathers) say that someone cannot be saved means that, by what we understood and what was handed to us from the father shows and most important WHAT ACTIONS WE SEE, we can judge. But after all, it becomes God's will.....so i think we need to drop all that "salvation" talk if you really want to get a clear understanding of things.
You speak about "Orthodoxy" as being a separate religion or faith on it's own.....that's is incorrect. It is ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY....that's what we believe in and what we live by. the person MUST be a christian.....you can't get into a room without going through the door.
The concept of good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell is not orthodox......in every way. Heaven is not a reward and Hell is not a punishment. It's a choice.....to live with God or to not. doing good is not enough to get into heaven. that's only part of the equation that is very complicated.
The EO and OO are both Orthodox and together they comprise the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, atleast in my humble opinion. The Orthodox Church believes in an active dynamic working relationship with the Holy Spirit through synergia (synergy) and that by this the Holy Spirit directs the active life of the Church. Moreover the Orthodox Church believes that one's salvation stems far beyond the crucifix as we believe Christ renewed humanity and destroyed death and thus we are to constantly towards our deification. We must continually strive to reach unto the heights of the Divine and we must become "Partakers of the Divine nature" as St. Peter has said in his second epistle. We must strive for this state BUT Christ has given us His body and His blood to enable us to ascend unto to this height that we may be united to God incarnate by His body and blood as it is said in the fraction on page 459-461 of the SUS liturgy book, "At the turning of the bread and wine into Your body and blood, our souls shall be turned unto fellowship with your glory, and our souls shall be united to your divinity".
This is our sacramental theology. We must strive for our deification and being molded into the image of Christ day by day. If you follow this, this makes you Orthodox atleast in practice. But there is a caveat. Who has been given the authority to administer these mysteries? The apostles were. And the apostles ordained worthy men to be able to stand at the altar and offer the Eucharist and this authority they have been given has been perpetuated through them from Christ down to us. It is through apostolic succession that we find ministers who have the ordination of Christ, who come to the altar worthily to offer up the 'bloodless sacrifice'. Protestants do not have this. Protestants do not believe in deification, they do not believe in a true synergy between man and God (even if they pay lip service to it). Your comment about muslims is irrelevant and will be disregarded as they dont even believe in Christ's divinity and thus it is probably self explanatory that they are outside the scope of this conversation.
The Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Church, both EO and OO. We are a family, and we will be united soon, by the grace of God. Those who live their Orthodox theology are those who can be Christians proper and not just some group which came thereafter and took the moniker of being called Christian but not being what a Christian was understood to have always been. Evagrius of Pontus said, "A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian". We live and practice our theology and are not simply scholastic in the approach to our faith.
The EO have safeguarded the faith of the Fathers and thanks be to God, we have numerous blessed priests and hierarchs who have kept the faith albeit we have more confusion on the OO side in my opinion with numerous catholic and protestant thoughts being taken as the status quo.
The EO are Orthodox as are the OO
while the rest must be tormented forever as though the Egyptians please Him so much. You think it is all about rituals and not about keeping the Law
"In the LORD all the descendants of Israel shall be justified and shall glory" God's love is unfailing towards Israel and in the last days all of Israel will be saved while still calling all people to salvation
It is not from Egypt that the Law comes from. This is not too sensical but Egyptians are the children of Noah's son Ham. He was the cursed one which Jacob said to him he will be a servant to his brothers
You can not see that you resemble the pharisee thinking you deserve to be saved but the rest should be damned "those tax collectors" and heathen.
Yes, false ecumenism is the heresy of the Anti-Christ. We know this fact, and we do not want to be reminded of it.
Yes, false ecumenism is the heresy of the Anti-Christ. We know this fact, and we do not want to be reminded of it.
Is there a form of ecumenism you deem acceptable?
Or is H.H. Pope Shenouda III and the entire Oriental Orthodox Synod completely wrong on the issue of ecumenism?
✞✞✞
False ecumenism is the one we are immersed in now and are practicing with all heretical groups who are outside the Church, being so coward to proclaim the Truth and express true love to these groups by giving them a false sense of hope in salvation in the heresy they live in. Our approach is one of " it is all good and all eshta" and our divisions are only different forms of worship. Our heresy led us to embrace their teachings, songs, faith as our own.
Our participation in the World Church council and Mediterrainian Church Council is an admission of the sound faith of the participants as per the bylaws of these organization . No Orthodox bishop or priest involved in this ungodly assemblies for the sweet money they distribute ever stood up for the faith and proclaimed the Truth to the unbelievers. Never. All of them hug the rest and proclaim a false unity with heretical groups against which anathemas have been pronounced.
This applies to all heretical groups such as the Protestants or the Chalcedonian, Latin and specifically the Byzantines, also known as EO.
We have multiple anathemas against Chalcedon and the thugs like Leo. We scrap all that aside and spit on the memory of the saints who defended the faith when we are so stupid to state : " it was all a misunderstanding". I must ask what level of hypocrisy this false ecumenist feels when he commemorates Cyril, Dioscoros, Severus, Theodosious, and every Pope since Chalcedon till Pope Kyrillos VI, while confessing in the same breath that Leonists are Orthodox.
As for the Holy Synod and the departed Pope or the new one, you can ask those living among them and make your own mind about the ones who departed.
Do they have the right to judge saints more honorable than they are? Not only one or two, virtually all post Chalcedon saints are canonized for defended the faith against Nestorianism of Chalcedon.
Is the Holy Synod who approved of and the Pope who signed the joint agreement Orthodox to begin with? Did they abide by the basic Orthodox beliefs such as deification, for example?
Who is to be trusted? Anba Samuel who list an eye for the Orthodox faith or The secretary of the Synod? Are we to trust politicians in the age of political correctness over martyrs and confessors?
I will express my utmost respect and profound admiration to "ReturnOrthodoxy" and "least of all". Although we are on different pages when it comes to ecumenism, I certainly admire their positions and opinions on almost every other topic and learn from their wisdom .
This should make any discussion regarding ecumenism more productive, knowing that it is governed by respect and true search for the Truth.
You also have my utmost respect. To complete this, Stavro is one of the most Orthodox men I know. I certainly disagree on the are of ecumenism, but him and I are, as was said of Gregory and Basil, one spirit in two bodies. Your points are always well written, and are presented as the voice of someone who loves the church, its saints, theology, and its God.
God willing, we can further interact on this thread with the love and peace which is so characteristic of a man/theologian/teacher of your caliber!
With utmost respect and admiration to you as well, Stavo,
Ray
Just a few quick questions:
What is the OO view on Baptism of desire and "invincible ignorance?"
Some great posts here on this thread, I must say...
Just a few quick questions:
What is the OO view on Baptism of desire and "invincible ignorance?"
No Salvation Outside the Oriental Orthodox Church
« on: October 24, 2012, 03:29:49 PM »
Quote from Somali,
My question is, why do you think the Oriental Orthodox Church is that One True Catholic Church? What makes you so sure that this is the True Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is not?
I can't really say with the certainty that I would like to have, that today (2012), all of Jesus Christ's requirements for salvation are taught and lived generally by the hierarchy, clergy and laity of either the OO or EO churches that I have personal knowledge and experience of. Each has some orthodox strengths, but both have glaring crucial weaknesses, laxities and neglects, particularly in the area of attention to the vital, traditional new life nurturing, patriarchy, gender and family commandments and teachings of the Holy Bible, of the Apostles and of our Holy Orthodox Fathers. Unfortunately, it seems that OO and EO are now more prone to passing on their current weaknesses and laxities to each other, rather than their dwindling special strengths that could be morally and spiritually beneficial and uplifting to each other. Western Coptic youth and families don't need EO Greek/Lebanese/Serbian (not ROCOR) grease on their slippery slope toward general Western secular cultural philosophies and immoralities.
Past glories of each are too much gloated over, rather than beneficially explained, shared and lived daily. Each separated branch should show that they desire to and can actually, spiritually and morally, buildup their own hierarchy, clergy and laity; before union with them would be spiritually and morally desired and beneficial to the other struggling Orthodox branch. Why join to our own detriment and distraction? The other branch would have little, to no, realistic beneficial influence on the disinterested other branch. Very few OO or EO, whom I have met, even know very much about the details of their own branch's Christological theology. I had to study on my own to get any understanding of either EO's or OO's Chalcedon position. The EO still publicly pray some embarrassing anathemas of SS Dioscorus and Severus when they celebrate Chalcedon (and perhaps all of their Ecumenical Counsels). I've never heard anything like this in an OO Church. Which has always favorably impressed me. I'm still waiting to read the specific benefits, except warm hugs on cold days, that our own ecumenists expect to benefit from. I think that it may all be unreasonable speculative dreams and illusions. But, I'm still waiting to be shown specific actual, experienced beneficial spiritual and moral examples.
The English speaking Coptic community (Tasbeha.org, for example) seems to me to be many orders more zealous, participatory and productive (relative to our population and newness) than any individual EO community. There have been exceptions, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Antiochian Ben Lomond community, OCA News.org, Ancient Faith Radio, etc. I'm still waiting for explanation of the patristic basis for the general modern EO belief in Orthodox initiation by anointing only, without Orthodox baptism. Some of our modern Coptic ecumenists seem to warmly embrace this seemingly heterodox innovation. Why? How?
This is my penny's worth. I hope it is of some worth. Thanks for opening an important discussion.
Restoring the Unity in Faith: The Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Theological Dialogue
[quote author=irishpilgrim link=topic=13788.msg161091#msg161091 date=1352690307]
I'm still waiting to read the specific benefits, except warm hugs on cold days, that our own ecumenists expect to benefit from. I think that it may all be unreasonable speculative dreams and illusions. But, I'm still waiting to be shown specific actual, experienced beneficial spiritual and moral examples....Some of our modern Coptic ecumenists seem to warmly embrace this seemingly heterodox innovation. Why? How?
There is so much I have to say on this topic but I don't have time right now. Ecumenism is not about hugs and superficial tolerance in an effort to avoid being called bigots. It is obvious from the anti-ecumenists on this site and others that many fail to see that ecumenism=theology. Ecumenism is a reflection of our understanding about how God wanted us to be united (not just how we should treat each other). It is also a reflection about how we understand God and His commandments. I need to say this again because it seems to be completely ignored. Ecumenism is how we understand God and His commandments. Just like God expresses and reveals that He Himself is a Trinity - a family that cannot be divided - He reveals that His Church is a family of "paradoxes" that cannot divided. (Read my post on St Shenoute the Archimandrite's sermon). Just like the Father cannot be without the Son (or put another way, "The Father cannot claim His Son is not His equal") so too Christians cannot claim those whom God has called to salvation are not their equal and they can live without them. Failure to believe in the theology of ecumenism is equal to failure to believe in the Trinity. If you don't believe me, read John 17:21.
If ecumenism is all unreasonable, filled with speculative dreams and illusions, then Christ is the biggest dreamer and the one who commands unreasonable illusions. You said you wanted specific actual experience beneficial and moral examples. How about John 8. Instead of condemning those who are different (and technically someone who broke the law is much worse than someone who simply belongs to a different Christian church), Christ makes the people and the woman realize that they are all the same. All need forgiveness. All need salvation. All need to find ways to remove division and create unity.
The anti-ecumenist's "I'd rather be divided, having nothing to do with you because I'm right and you're wrong" philosophy is not the battle cry of "a courageous voice liberated by the grace of the Spirit from false ecumenism" It is the cry of one who refuses to follow Christ's example to love his neighbor as Himself and be united to his neighbor as Christ united to humanity.
I will address the anathemas in another post.
Are any of you familiar with this book?:
Restoring the Unity in Faith: The Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Theological Dialogue
I have this book...its quite good.
Its a collection of summaries, letters and agreed statements from both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Communions.
+++
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13788.msg161067#msg161067 date=1352584094]
Some great posts here on this thread, I must say...
Just a few quick questions:
What is the OO view on Baptism of desire and "invincible ignorance?"
I think we need to define what makes one Orthodox? How would you guys define "Orthodox"? What constitutes an Orthodox Church? What constitutes an Orthodox Christian?
I think all these definitions are pertinent to the discussion because if we adequately define these then we can begin to delve into how we view our Orthodox brethren, and I am of the conclusion that they fit my definition of being "Orthodox".
Note: I normally dont like to go about defining things like this as I believe the Orthodox church as the body of Christ defies definition but it would be nice to have a framework around which to work.
One; Augustine is a blessed man and his conversion and repentance is an awesome story to tell BUT he is not a saint in my books due to his numerous wrong teachings. Fr. Athanasius Iskander has written on this.
I don't recall Fr Athanasius denoting Blessed Augustine's view on schism as being heretical, can you elaborate?