Do Eastern Catholics believe anyone can be saved?

[Erick_Ybarra]

Church Militant,

I don’t think I’ve ever made a post directed at you, but let it be known that I don’t attack people I confront doctrine with hard questions. However when you criticize you direct it AT people.

I’m not sure what you think of me but I can assure you that you are wrong about my attitude. I was raised catholic, became baptist, and now I’m fed up with Protestantism. I am looking forward to see what the catholic roman church has to say but because I come from a heavy school of Bible study, I cannot cross the Tiber thatquick.

Things like Mary are very concerning.

But with respect to salvation, it is clear to most historians that catholics historically did not believe there was salvation outside the church. They believed the people which through no fault of their own did not hear christ will be met with justice for their sin.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I was raised catholic, became baptist, and now I’m fed up with Protestantism. I am looking forward to see what the catholic roman church has to say but because I come from a heavy school of Bible study, I cannot cross the Tiber thatquick.

OK, so that being said, why specifically did you pose this question to Eastern Catholics, as opposed to Catholics in general?

Things like Mary are very concerning.

Another thread (we’ll look forward to it).

But with respect to salvation, it is clear to most historians that catholics historically did not believe there was salvation outside the church.

Forget about historians - what did Jesus have to say about it?

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant,

I don’t think I’ve ever made a post directed at you, but let it be known that I don’t attack people I confront doctrine with hard questions. However when you criticize you direct it AT people.

No Erik, you just ignore the guys like me who “confront” your “hard questions” with the hard answers that you don’t seem to like.

I’m not sure what you think of me but I can assure you that you are wrong about my attitude.

We’ll certainly see over time.

I was raised catholic, became baptist, and now I’m fed up with Protestantism

Yeah I saw that in your previous posts.

I am looking forward to see what the catholic roman church

has to say but because I come from a heavy school of Bible study,Maybe you ought to start by dropping the distinctly anti-Catholic terminology like that. We’re the Catholic Church, period. All that other stuff is generally meant to be derogatory and is not appreciated by those of us who are faithful Catholics.

I cannot cross the Tiber thatquick.

Get flippers now then because it may be a long hard swim.

Things like Mary are very concerning.

A subject for another whole thread but not this one.

But with respect to salvation, it is clear to most historians that catholics historically did not believe there was salvation outside the church. They believed the people which through no fault of their own did not hear christ will be met with justice for their sin.

The problem there (for you anyway) is that you do not seem to realize that that justice from God may be different and more merciful than what everyone expects. We are bound by God’s commands and sacraments, but God is not bound by anything and therefore, the Church recognizes that such persons may find salvation as well.

Understand this, that so far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Protestant salvation is still only possible because of their somewhat tenuous connection and communion to the Church. You’ll find this clearly stated in the catechism in paragraph 836 through 838, but I suggest that you read on because it also touches on the further issues of this thread.

I know you don’t care about the Catechism, but you need to, because if you use it as intended, you’ll find that, along with the massive footnotes you’ll gain insight into every aspect of Christianity. It is often discounted by people who don’t have a clue of the depth of teaching both from the Word of God and history and magisterium.

 

[Taurks]

To answer the OP: At least in Orthodoxy (which, as far as I’m concerned, is close enough to Eastern Catholicism), the answer I’ve always heard “we don’t know and should not spend our time speculating about it.”

There’s a great story about Bishop Kallistos Ware (one of the important writers in Orthodoxy of the 20th century) traveling in a car with an Abbot. The Bishop asks the abbot if God might release a soul from Hell for such and such a reason. The Abbot answers him, “Mind your own business”

The same response was given to a layman who asked an elder if Protestants would go to heaven. I’m paraphrasing, but the elder said, "Son, why are you worrying about them? Don’t they already have a god who loved them so much that he died for them? Shouldn’t you be more concerned with your own salvation? "

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Because the gospel is a universal salvific grace or condemning law. Jesus said “Go and preach the gospel to all creatures. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16).

In other words, what we can allow for others bears upon our own life. If a buddhist is going to heaven, then I can be a buddhist. If a muhamadden can go to heaven, then I can join islam. If Mormans can go to heave, then I can be a morman. I just need to be convinced of their arguments.

 

[Vico]

…

Vico,
HA! The conversation that we are having makes me laugh This is the first time that I have been in a conversation where the Catholic is consistently quoting from the Bible while I am consistently quoting from other sources! As usual very good post…

That said I agree that the Pope should clear up any misunderstandings. As I had said earlier there seems to be conflicting doctrines. However, as I tried to illustrate, the problem is not coming simply from the laity but from the higher echelons of the RCC.

In regards to you mentioning the the parable of the sower…Great!!.. The Bible should be the place to go for foundational truth (2 Tim 3:16). however, I believe the individual opinions of the Catholics that I referenced, as well as the doctrine in the Cathecism cannot be ignored so easily. I would give more leeway In a textbook that leans toward liberal Protestantism since there is no claims that the book is inspired. However, the teachings and traditions of the RCC are considered to be inspired. Therefore, other issues arise when seeing such contradictions.
…

These are consistently taught by the Church, including the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have not seen any conflicts in what you have posted (in general those quotes use words expression potentiality, such as may, not absolutes, with regards to non-Catholics). There is a certain charity extended to the invincibly ignorant.

Salvation requires both baptism (water, desire, or blood) and sanctity (by choice), to be certain of that salvation. We do not name specific individuals who are damned, for we cannot know this with certainty, but we do name specific individuals who are saved, that is, the saints. There is hope (not certainty) for infants that have died un-baptized, although they cannot enter heaven. All salvation is through Christ, and all those saved are members of the Church, even if they were not in the visible Church until the moment of their death.

You can read all of this in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3 of 1891.

Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.
Q. 516. Why can there be only one true religion?
A. There can be only one true religion, because a thing cannot be false and true at the same time, and, therefore, all religions that contradict the teaching of the true Church must teach falsehood. If all religions in which men seek to serve God are equally good and true, why did Christ disturb the Jewish religion and the Apostles condemn heretics?
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

baltimore-catechism.com/index.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because the gospel is a universal salvific grace or condemning law. Jesus said “Go and preach the gospel to all creatures. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16).

In other words, what we can allow for others bears upon our own life. “IF”} a buddhist is going to heaven, then I can be a buddhist. “IF” a muhamadden can go to heaven, then I can join islam. “IF”] Mormans can go to heave, then I can be a morman. I just need to be convinced of their arguments.

You make no sense, nor do you read anything linked. You condemned youself to your own thinking which there is no way out of until you read.

Yes we think much of the Bible the “Apostolic Church” gave to the world …Thank You for your quote.

Your All Paths to Heaven theory is a fictitious strawman which has no basis for its foundation, its built on sand. Its never been taught in the Church nor never will, it exists but in your mind. And the rest who think divinity dawned on them and they know more than 2000 years of scholars.

And what does your Bible quote have to do with this?

[Matthew 24:14: And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.]

Apparently it hasn’t reached “ALL”. which is a sore thumb sticking out you refuse to acknowledge because of a well linked Apostolic Teaching on " Invincible Ignorance". Course why read the links and read anything since you presume to know everything.

Which obviously you do not grasp this concept. Be waiting on your “facts” in CC teaching that all are saved, which I can assure you won’t be coming.

 

[GaryTaylor]

To answer the OP: At least in Orthodoxy (which, as far as I’m concerned, is close enough to Eastern Catholicism), the answer I’ve always heard “we don’t know and should not spend our time speculating about it.”

There’s a great story about Bishop Kallistos Ware (one of the important writers in Orthodoxy of the 20th century) traveling in a car with an Abbot. The Bishop asks the abbot if God might release a soul from Hell for such and such a reason. The Abbot answers him, “Mind your own business”

The same response was given to a layman who asked an elder if Protestants would go to heaven. I’m paraphrasing, but the elder said, "Son, why are you worrying about them? Don’t they already have a god who loved them so much that he died for them? Shouldn’t you be more concerned with your own salvation? "

Amen…The Music of Logic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A good question to ask is what view of Mary did the apostles have

This is what I mean about being all over the map. You haven’t a point to begin with the OP. Now you would like to speak of the Apostles and Mary?

The only related point bought up with Mary is by b0Bby123 in relation to Dr Hahn and Islam.

 

[GaryTaylor]

These are consistently taught by the Church, including the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have not seen any conflicts in what you have posted (in general those quotes use words expression potentiality, such as may, not absolutes, with regards to non-Catholics). There is a certain charity extended to the invincibly ignorant.

Salvation requires both baptism (water, desire, or blood) and sanctity (by choice), to be certain of that salvation. We do not name specific individuals who are damned, for we cannot know this with certainty, but we do name specific individuals who are saved, that is, the saints. There is hope (not certainty) for infants that have died un-baptized, although they cannot enter heaven. All salvation is through Christ, and all those saved are members of the Church, even if they were not in the visible Church until the moment of their death.

You can read all of this in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3 of 1891.

Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.
Q. 516. Why can there be only one true religion?
A. There can be only one true religion, because a thing cannot be false and true at the same time, and, therefore, all religions that contradict the teaching of the true Church must teach falsehood. If all religions in which men seek to serve God are equally good and true, why did Christ disturb the Jewish religion and the Apostles condemn heretics?
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

baltimore-catechism.com/index.htm

The Baltimore Catechism is a much overlooked Catechism.

 

[JerryZ]

Where are they? The original post of yours on the last thread which led to this thread? This is what I found for a first post…

"This subject ties into the RCC’s policy called the “New Evangelization” By understanding this concept, you can better understand the RCC’s concepts on salvation to Non-Catholics.
In the catechism, starting at paragraph 839, it discusses the status of certain non-Christians in God's economy. For instance, it says that even though Jews do not believe in Jesus as the savior, it implies that the Old Covenant is still valid because they believe in a Messiah, only that the next time He comes the Jews believe that it will be the first. I believe that this denies Jesus. Jesus said that "I am the way the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6).
The book goes further in discussing Muslims, in that they are also children of God and worship the same as Christians, therefore, “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator” (841). I have studied Islamic culture and religion, I’m required to within my job. I can’t agree with this statement. The Quran and Hadith are diametrically opposed to our Bible. In backing up this statement, Muslims deny the deity of Jesus and even that Jesus had died on the cross. the first part of this statement is written plainly on the outside of the Dome in Jerusalem. In refutation of those writings, Acts 4:11-12 quotes Jesus as saying there is no salvation through anyone but Jesus. To summarize this paragraph, The god of the Muslim is not our God.

The catechism also talks briefly about other pantheistic and polytheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, saying that they all are on a path to God. However, what’s most interesting is when the book discusses non-catholic Christians. This group is described as those that either know the Word of God and refuse to enter the RCC or those who have, in the words of Robert Barron priest and host of the Word on Fire video series, “divorced themselves from God”. As this group is discussed you can see that the tone noticeably changes. Simply put the Catechism pronounces that there is no salvation to those who knowingly separate themselves from the church (RCC).

This seems to be the evangelization priorities of the RCC as per the “New Evangelization” policy and the Catechism and it summarizes RCC concepts of salvation among Non-Catholics. These beliefs are what I believe could fall under what one may call near-worldwide ecumenism. So there is an important impasse that we must cross as Christians. If the Bible, believed to be inspired text, says that Jesus is our only way to heaven but the Catechism states that there are other paths, then one might ask (with all due respect) how can God be so contradicting? The answer that we all should be joyous about is that He’s not. With this in mind we can logically assume that both texts cannot be correct. This subject is an extremely important part of our faith as Christians. Before any of us jump to any conclusions, we all must first pray that God opens our eyes and ears for His truth. Thank you for your time."

Perhaps if all are on the same page this would be easier. Doing a quick search of (Catechism and “God vs Allah” by Dr Scott Hahn) this is what came up as your first post. Is it safe to say this is what we are discussing?

“If the Bible, believed to be inspired text, says that Jesus is our only way to heaven but the Catechism states that there are other paths, then one might ask (with all due respect) how can God be so contradicting?”

GOD never contradicts Himself. Perhaps we cannot fully comprehend Him.
After Jesus dies in the cross the Bible tells us that the first thing he does is to free Abraham and the rest of the “just” that were waiting for Him.
Now Abraham never heard there would be a messiah
He did not know or heard anything about Jesus.
The prophets that announced His coming arrived thousands of years later after Abraham’s death.
Did Abraham need baptism? Evidently NOT
And yet he was saved!

Would GOD that we know from Jesus IS love not give a measure of mercy to a person that lived his life in total ignorance of christianity?
Or an unborn child aborted?
He never had a chance at anything would God impute him/her fault for that?

There are paths that save even when there is no direct knowledge of Jesus but HE is the means of salvation for HE alone paid the price.

Now if you have come to understand the truth that the Church is the one that was founded by Jesus and still reject her are you not directly rejecting Him?

So our protestant brothers will have imputed that if/when they come to realize that it is true that His Church the one he founded 2000 years ago and entrusted to Peter.
They share the baptism and belief in Jesus and by living a righteous life they can surely hope in salvation.
There is a measure of ignorance of the fact that the RCC is the true Church founded by Jesus. That is why the RCC leaves open the possibility of salvation even on this account.

Same goes for muslims, they have the quran and they have come to believe that as their salvation they fall in the same cathegory of people that did NOT know Jesus.
A distorted and false knowledge is equal to no knowledge.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Heres a post on this from a thread on this topic a few weeks ago I typed.

This year do you know any one saved by invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the Church?

If you do not know any of these cases this year can they be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors?

Thus the issue is that we do not know who on earth will be saved by invincible ignorance, so not all need to convert but only those who know; who are not in invincible ignorance. This is the catch. Only God can judge who knew what. and did not. Thus the premise being we cannot condemn souls out of our assumption.

For example this point has been argued with Protestants and “wrongly”, I might add, that “they know” the Church exists and therefore through their own free-will ignore the teaching of the Church to their demise. We cannot know, what another knows to repeat.

Lumen Gentium is correct in saying only those ‘who know’.

And this is not new theology or as suggested a “contradiction” and would have without a doubt been know by the Pope at the time of the Bull in question.

St. Augustine’s position is also consistent with Vatican II. "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39] [A.D. 394]).

Clement of Rome, wrote, “Let us go through all generations and learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance for those willing to turn to him. Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God” (Letter to the Corinthians, no. 7)

St Paul teaches we are judged by our intentions. “Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God” (1 Corinthians 4:5).

St Thomas Aquinas refers to the Apostle Paul here.

Romans 2:13-16, “For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the Law do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law. They show that what the Law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

No Salvation outside the Church is to be understood as the Church itself understands it. For our Lord did not leave it to individual private judgment to explain what is contained in the deposit of faith, but to the doctrinal authority of the Church. He left a Church and desired it to be one.

Justin Martyr - We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9].

Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos} were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . .

Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

The Early Church Fathers taught that those outside of the Catholic Church had no hope of salvation. That is, if they heard the gospel and knowingly rejected it. However, they made an allowance for those who, through no fault of their own, didn’t know any better. They didn’t see God as being legalistic. Rather they saw a merciful God who judged men by what they did with what they had. Or as Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 4:5, men will be judged by the purposes of their hearts as noted above.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

“If the Bible, believed to be inspired text, says that Jesus is our only way to heaven but the Catechism states that there are other paths, then one might ask (with all due respect) how can God be so contradicting?”

GOD never contradicts Himself. Perhaps we cannot fully comprehend Him.
After Jesus dies in the cross the Bible tells us that the first thing he does is to free Abraham and the rest of the “just” that were waiting for Him.
Now Abraham never heard there would be a messiah
He did not know or heard anything about Jesus.
The prophets that announced His coming arrived thousands of years later.
Did Abraham need baptism? Evidently NOT
And yet he was saved!

Would GOD that we know from Jesus IS love not give a measure of mercy to a person that lived his life in total ignorance of christianity?
Or an unborn child aborted?
He never had a chance at anything would God impute him/her fault for that?

There are paths that save even when there is no direct knowledge of Jesus but HE is the means of salvation for HE alone paid the price.

Now if you have come to understand the truth that the Church is the one that was founded by Jesus and still reject her are you not directly rejecting Him?

So our protestant brothers will have imputed that if/when they come to realize that it is true that His Church the one he founded 2000 years ago and entrusted to Peter.
They share the baptism and belief in Jesus and by living a righteous life they can surely hope in salvation.
There is a measure of ignorance of the fact that the RCC is the true Church founded by Jesus. That is why the RCC leaves open the possibility of salvation even on this account.

Same goes for muslims, they have the quran and they have come to believe that as their salvation they fall in the same cathegory of people that did NOT know Jesus.
A distorted and false knowledge is equal to no knowledge.

Right the usual issue resides from the CCC 841 forward yet it must be read word for word in context/content or it is cherry picking as mentioned, course after that chapter titled Salvation for Non Christians comes No Salvation Outside the Church. So we see the two teachings the later being a Dogma of the Church since St Cyprian.

But your correct. And Vicos point with the Baltimore CCC is one which seems lost today yet thats what many of us grew up being taught. I realize its a difficult topic especially when the only read is the last CCC and then don’t go deeper into the footnotes thus history.

Or when we say “The catechism also talks briefly about other pantheistic and polytheistic religions” the only correct response could be in all fairness is for me is; fine lets take a look at the entire context, I have the book here, the pages are on-line.

Peace

 

[b0Bby123]

Vico and Gary,
with respect to your last posts, I would say that is my exact point. The RCC no doubt was the first Christian church so you will see the foundations of our faith such as in the baltimore edition and in previous or subsequent paragraphs of the ones I’m submitting. However, these teachings, I believe have been tainted by pluralism that has crept in over the years. Therefore, if the question is; can anyone be saved? I would have to say, according to the parts of the Catechism second edition, according to Mother Teresa and Sister Ann, According to Karl Rainer, Cardinal OConner and other liberal thinkers, the answer is YES. Now it seems that we all here know differently and we can go on and on about what says what and where… but we cannot deny this fact that there is a problem with pluralistic ideas within church documents (post Vatican II) and within all levels of the epicopate. This has translated down to the laity. If you travel to other countries (I’m sure that many of you have) you will see this problem more pronounced.

To Militant
I respect your enthusiasm, but not your tactics. He may have in the past but I have not witnessed any hostility from Erik. I would assume that since he is on the fence of leaving the RCC that you might try to be witnessing to him with love. I have seen nothing but bully tactics from your end. This is the impression you are giving to a trial member. I realize you are a senior member. I would challenge you to act accordingly. Until that happens, your posts will be ignored. God Bless.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Vico and Gary,
with respect to your last posts, I would say that is my exact point. The RCC no doubt was the first Christian church so you will see the foundations of our faith such as in the baltimore edition and in previous or subsequent paragraphs of the ones I’m submitting. However, these teachings, I believe have been tainted by pluralism that has crept in over the years. Therefore, if the question is; can anyone be saved? I would have to say, according to the parts of the Catechism second edition, according to Mother Teresa and Sister Ann, According to Karl Rainer, Cardinal OConner and other liberal thinkers, the answer is YES. Now it seems that we all here know differently and we can go on and on about what says what and where… but we cannot deny this fact that there is a problem with pluralistic ideas within church documents (post Vatican II) and within all levels of the epicopate. This has translated down to the laity. If you travel to other countries (I’m sure that many of you have) you will see this problem more pronounced.

Morning Bob,

Here’s an interesting read on Mother Teresa from a reverse Islamic perspective.

google.com/url?q=http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/13564/can-mother-teresa-a-non-muslim-go-to-heaven/&sa=U&ei=FgmNUKz9KKzK0AHPiYH4AQ&ved=0CB4QFjAD&usg=AFQjCNEEL5lZ2NKqzGTLgAVxmpTENmrAhA

I’ll catch up later have to run.

Peace

 

[b0Bby123]

Thanks Gary… I’ll read it… I have to to run myself… It’s Sunday so I’m guessing noone will be posting for a bit.

I will have to admit to some ignorance on my part… The title which includes the word “Eastern” … Is this post reffering to the Greek Orhodox church? or is there another “Eastern” Catholic church? I think I made my point with the RCC and I would like to move more on topic.

 

[b0Bby123]

Hey Gary,
I didn’t read the whole transcript from the link you provided but I have the basic idea.

I would say that those Muslims spoke correctly as according to their Koran. Christians and Jews are considered people of the book and should be treated a little better (third class citizens or slaves) on earth as long as we fall under “Dar al Islam” or the world of Islam (Islamic controlled areas). If we fall under “Dar al Hab” or the world of war (every where NOT under Islamic control) then we can be treated like the atheist that doesn’t believe anything… which means we die. With all that said a majority of the people in Islamic countries are considered “modern” and are peaceful. However, this is not Islam. The correct form of Islam is very violent… otherwise more popularly known as Radical Islam. there are many reasons why this is true but I am already off topic… SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!!

I have to ask… why did you post that link? very interesting read nonetheless.

 

[b0Bby123]

Morning Bob,

Here’s an interesting read on Mother Teresa from a reverse Islamic perspective.

google.com/url?q=http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/13564/can-mother-teresa-a-non-muslim-go-to-heaven/&sa=U&ei=FgmNUKz9KKzK0AHPiYH4AQ&ved=0CB4QFjAD&usg=AFQjCNEEL5lZ2NKqzGTLgAVxmpTENmrAhA

I’ll catch up later have to run.

Peace

Hey!! I figured out how to quote!!! Silly me! I can’t believe I didn’t see that!

 

[b0Bby123]

Very Interested! Thanks! I’m aware of the Orthodox Churches but did not realize that “Western” Catholics considered them to be one with them. I am familiar with the Great Scism in 1054 but I also know most Orthodox Catholics have told me that is a misnomer since they were “never part of the RCC in the first place”.

It would be nice to read some scholarly articles on the subject. I admit, I’m not that familiar with it… Thanks again!

By the way! I almost moved to England a few months ago… what is your opinion of Molesworth? You can email me this if want.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I thought Patriarch Bartholomew spoke well at the Synod. You might want to see this Bob.

google.com/url?q=http://saintjamesprayforme.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/patriarch-bartholomews-address-to-the-synod-in-rome/&sa=U&ei=4jqNUPikDdHW0gGzzYHgDw&ved=0CBoQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNE3mwZ3lAR55CPQDKGbGFfK98h0CQ

But yes as far as East West Catholics, I can’t speak for them as to the OP in the sense that I’m in the Latin Rite. So its in the Universal sense I feel comfortable speaking on the Deposit of Faith. That why I didn’t want to drift into Latin Cardinals etc. Mother Teresa was just an abstract view of invincible ignorance I found interesting.

Peace