Does the Orthodox Church teach that Roman Catholics can be saved?

[ConstantineTG]

Right on the money…exactly! One of our duties as baptized Christians (Catholic,Orthodox,Protestant,etc) is to edify the Kingdom of God here on earth,not criticize what others should have or may be lacking. Excellent statement TG…

Right. I think the pain of our histories has made us a bit wary of one another, that is we act with suspicion with what the other does regardless of the holiness of that action. And then we sought to clearly separate ourselves from the other by trying to redefine our own faiths that is in complete opposition to what the other side did. The Catholic Church did it at the Reformation, the Orthodox Church did it at the Great Schism. There are still Orthodox today who claim that Peter has no leadership whatsoever among the Apostles only for the reason that they do not want to give validity to the Papacy in any way. They won’t even give an inch. But then we become dishonest to ourselves. At least I’m glad more and more are speaking up against this matter and affirming that the issue is not whether Peter has primacy or not, but what that primacy exactly means. And also the other issue of whether Peter did pass anything on to anyone in relation to this primacy.

If we can all agree that God is within all of us, we can speak to one another better. And even though we can be honest about our faith, we need not become defensive and angry at one another and instead continue to dialogue in love.

 

[Nicea325]

Right. I think the pain of our histories has made us a bit wary of one another, that is we act with suspicion with what the other does regardless of the holiness of that action. And then we sought to clearly separate ourselves from the other by trying to redefine our own faiths that is in complete opposition to what the other side did. The Catholic Church did it at the Reformation, the Orthodox Church did it at the Great Schism. There are still Orthodox today who claim that Peter has no leadership whatsoever among the Apostles only for the reason that they do not want to give validity to the Papacy in any way. They won’t even give an inch. But then we become dishonest to ourselves. At least I’m glad more and more are speaking up against this matter and affirming that the issue is not whether Peter has primacy or not, but what that primacy exactly means. And also the other issue of whether Peter did pass anything on to anyone in relation to this primacy.

If we can all agree that God is within all of us, we can speak to one another better. And even though we can be honest about our faith, we need not become defensive and angry at one another and instead continue to dialogue in love.

Pride my brother…pride is what damages us humans at times. We are guilty of it, including me. I agree with you and as I said before, our leaders need to focus on the present and the furture,the past is exactly that…the past. Charity,compassion, dialogue, and patience is what will get us closer and truly build God’s Kingdom here on earth.

 

[Trebor135]

Yup, I told someone once, what is the worth of having fullness of the truth when we don’t make use of all of it? We may have 100%, but if we’re only using 50%, how are we any better than those who have 75% of the truth but make use of all of that 75%? I guess that was Christ’s point.

Would we say the same thing about Jehovah’s Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals though?

I hope Dzheremi will correct me if need be–but the late Coptic Pope Shenouda III believed, as I understand, that Evangelicals couldn’t be saved given that they deny the sacramental economy.

So, the top hierarch of an (Oriental) Orthodox church–nothing out of the mainstream–would put all those three groups into the same category.

This is why it’s quite understandable, in my view, for others to ask of us, “Do you consider me Christian?” The implications for their own spiritual journeys could be huge.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Would we say the same thing about Jehovah’s Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals though?

I hope Dzheremi will correct me if need be–but the late Coptic Pope Shenouda III believed, as I understand, that Evangelicals couldn’t be saved given that they deny the sacramental economy.

So, the top hierarch of an (Oriental) Orthodox church–nothing out of the mainstream–would put all those three groups into the same category.

This is why it’s quite understandable, in my view, for others to ask of us, “Do you consider me Christian?” The implications for their own spiritual journeys could be huge.

That is why Christ said that we leave the judging to Him. We can speculate on the factors on why and how people can be saved, but only He knows all the details. And only He knows everything about a person enough to justly judge them. I’m not saying what I say is dogma, it is my own opinion. But I see many negative attitudes form because one belongs somewhere. Will there be JWs in heaven? Maybe, who knows. Maybe God needs them there to count and make sure there’s only 144,000 people there

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s the thing too, when Christ died He died for all. Not only all who lived during His time, but all who will live after, and all who lived before. There were no Christians before His time on earth, so how were they saved? Can we deny that the Prophets are not in heaven today?

Remember that God is not bound by anything, even the Sacraments.

 

[dzheremi]

Would we say the same thing about Jehovah’s Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals though?

I hope Dzheremi will correct me if need be–but the late Coptic Pope Shenouda III believed, as I understand, that Evangelicals couldn’t be saved given that they deny the sacramental economy.

So, the top hierarch of an (Oriental) Orthodox church–nothing out of the mainstream–would put all those three groups into the same category.

This is why it’s quite understandable, in my view, for others to ask of us, “Do you consider me Christian?” The implications for their own spiritual journeys could be huge.

I have never heard or read that myself. I have read HH’s book on the heresy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and seen a few interviews where HH talks about them, but I do not recall anything in these sources that explicitly claimed that they cannot be saved (plenty does show how they are not Christians, however). What is your source on this from among HH’s writings? I would appreciate a link to the appropriate writings, if you have one handy.

 

[Trebor135]

I have never heard or read that myself. I have read HH’s book on the heresy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and seen a few interviews where HH talks about them, but I do not recall anything in these sources that explicitly claimed that they cannot be saved (plenty does show how they are not Christians, however). What is your source on this from among HH’s writings? I would appreciate a link to the appropriate writings, if you have one handy.

I haven’t read any books by Pope Shenouda III–perhaps this conversation is a sign that should change–but rather my statement was based on one or more posts at OrthodoxChristianity.net.

After searching in my links archive, I turned up the following from “Does this verse apply to Protestants?”:

Dear all, Peace and grace be with your spirit,
Not only HE Metropolitan Bishoy but also HH Pope Shenouda III has expressed Orthodox teachings towards heretics and protestant sects. In HH books regarding the “Heresy of salvation in a moment” HH clearly denounces the whole protestant ethos that salvation can come in an instant of an emotional “Jesus prayer” and HH book on the Priesthood ‘clearly’ affirms that protestants do not have Sacraments, no priesthood, no Eucharist etc and that these are the “means of grace” God effects for salvation. So I would say that the Orthodox understanding that there is “No salvation outside of the Ark of the Church” is well and truly upheld by the senior hierarchs of the blessed Coptic Orthodox Church.

This post may not be precisely what jogged my memory and triggered my earlier statement, or I may simply be mistaken. Either way, have you read those books and, if so, what does Pope Shenouda say there about the salvation of Evangelicals?

 

[dzheremi]

I have not read those particular books, no. But I would point out that there is nothing in that post that quotes HH as saying that Protestants cannot be saved, nor is there anything in it that I disagree with. From my perspective as an individual Coptic Orthodox person, anyway, it would be just as wrong to categorically say “Protestants have sacraments” as it would be to say “Protestants/others cannot be saved”. We are not to make definitive judgments on others. The Coptic Orthodox Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, honors St. Isaac of Nineveh. I do not think that we are so stupid as to define “No Salvation Outside the Church” in a way that is absolutely exclusive of those not in communion with us, but at the same time it is not wrong to say the things that are said in that post, apparently with backing from HH’s writings (I trust that the poster in question is being honest about that): Protestants have no sacraments as we recognize them in our own Church, and the sacraments are means by which God affects salvation. You may conclude from that that our hierarchs have taught that such-and-such cannot be saved, but that is not a necessary conclusion based on the firm stance taken against recognizing any kind of Protestant priesthood or Eucharist or what have you. In fact, I think it is rather premature, at best.

 

[Trebor135]

I have not read those particular books, no. But I would point out that there is nothing in that post that quotes HH as saying that Protestants cannot be saved, nor is there anything in it that I disagree with. From my perspective as an individual Coptic Orthodox person, anyway, it would be just as wrong to categorically say “Protestants have sacraments” as it would be to say “Protestants/others cannot be saved”. We are not to make definitive judgments on others. The Coptic Orthodox Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, honors St. Isaac of Nineveh. I do not think that we are so stupid as to define “No Salvation Outside the Church” in a way that is absolutely exclusive of those not in communion with us, but at the same time it is not wrong to say the things that are said in that post, apparently with backing from HH’s writings (I trust that the poster in question is being honest about that): Protestants have no sacraments as we recognize them in our own Church, and the sacraments are means by which God affects salvation. You may conclude from that that our hierarchs have taught that such-and-such cannot be saved, but that is not a necessary conclusion based on the firm stance taken against recognizing any kind of Protestant priesthood or Eucharist or what have you. In fact, I think it is rather premature, at best.

I should mention as well that the post I quoted above was responding to the following:

I see you are a Coptic Christian. One of your Metropolitans has expressed a negative view of the salvation of Protestants

In light of this, perhaps I misread the second poster as affirming that Pope Shenouda III believed that Protestants couldn’t be saved, when he/she was only saying something more general about the deficiencies of Protestant denominations.

I apologize in advance for any confusion caused. Perhaps you could ask someone at your church about this issue…? At least some Coptic parishioners have probably read the books in question.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I should mention as well that the post I quoted above was responding to the following:

I see you are a Coptic Christian. One of your Metropolitans has expressed a negative view of the salvation of Protestants

In light of this, perhaps I misread the second poster as affirming that Pope Shenouda III believed that Protestants couldn’t be saved, when he/she was only saying something more general about the deficiencies of Protestant denominations.

I apologize in advance for any confusion caused. Perhaps you could ask someone at your church about this issue…? At least some Coptic parishioners have probably read the books in question.

I don’t know if there is a consensus in Orthodoxy about who goes to heaven or not. Yes, some Church Fathers have spoken one way or another about it, but remember that we do not take everything the Church Fathers say as dogma. We pray for everybody and leave everyone to God’s mercy. Of course there are different prayers for those who are Orthodox and who aren’t, but it is not to say that one prayer is more powerful than the other. It is just that one’s soul is different after being nourished by the orthodox faith and the Sacramental Life of the Church, than from someone who isn’t.

 

[runningdude]

Can’t they convene an Orthodox Ecumenical Council to settle things?

Ironically, one of the reasons the Orthodox have not called an ecumenical council is that there has never been an ecumenical council that the western (Roman) church didn’t participate in.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ironically, one of the reasons the Orthodox have not called an ecumenical council is that there has never been an ecumenical council that the western (Roman) church didn’t participate in.

That is not true. It never stopped us from having Ecumenical Councils 3,4,5,6,7 after the Assyrian Church left. It never stopped us from having Ecumenical Councils 5,6,7 after the Coptic and Syriac and Armenian Churches left.

It just became hard and impossible to convene another Ecumenical Council after the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Roman Empire. Also, Ecumenical Councils settled Christological issues. We’ve haven’t had one since the 7th. All Christological issues today can be settled by the canons of the 7.

Also the way we settle issues today is much different. Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor because he wants peace in the Empire and didn’t want the bishops fighting over one another regarding doctrine. There is that political aspect to it, also why the Emperors almost always supported heresy especially when that heresy is supported by majority of the bishops. The emperor doesn’t care about truth, he just wants to settle the issue right away so he sides with the majority.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ironically, one of the reasons the Orthodox have not called an ecumenical council is that there has never been an ecumenical council that the western (Roman) church didn’t participate in.

I don’t think there were any western bishops or papal legates who participated in the First Council of Constantinople.

 

[devoutchristian]

I don’t think there were any western bishops or papal legates who participated in the First Council of Constantinople.

But it wasn’t accepted as universal before its ratification by Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But it wasn’t accepted as universal before its ratification by Rome.

It wasn’t accepted as universal before ALL bishops accepted it, including but not exclusive to Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think there were any western bishops or papal legates who participated in the First Council of Constantinople.

That is true as well. The Second Ecumenical Council was never convened as a universal council, but later they realized that the canons applies for all. Ecumenical Councils is not about who was there, but who accepted regardless of who attended.

 

[smad0142]

I ask because I really like Orthodox saints and spirituality, but I believe with all my heart that the Catholic Church is true. Is there something like salvation for other Christians?

Just as an aside you may want to look into the Eastern Catholic Churches if Eastern Saints and Spirituality speaks to you.

 

[devoutchristian]

It wasn’t accepted as universal before ALL bishops accepted it, including but not exclusive to Rome.

Really, every last bishop accepted it before it was considered dogmatic? If that were the case then they wouldn’t have needed the Council in the first place.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Really, every last bishop accepted it before it was considered dogmatic? If that were the case then they wouldn’t have needed the Council in the first place.

Why not? Does councils pronounce new doctrines or new dogmas? They don’t. They only clarify controversies, sometimes they’ll employ new methods of explaining beliefs that are already existing.

The council happens because some bishops or someone within the Church comes up with a questionable teaching. The council determines if such belief is heretical or orthodox by seeing if it aligns with the faith that the Church always have had. And this doesn’t happen in one council. Usually there are lesser councils before and after. The council that they declare as Ecumenical is the one that officially made a declaration of what is the orthodox faith, even though it wasn’t universally accepted until at a later council. You will see in the canons of some of the Ecumenical Councils that they affirm certain canons or anathemizations of teachings and/or people which came out from a previous council.

For example for the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the first council thought to be the Seventh taught in favor of iconoclasm. The next council anathemized that council and rules in favor of iconodules. But it wasn’t until a council later when icons were actually restored in churches. But it was still that second iconodule council that was recognized as the Ecumenical one.