/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>765782

I don't know if it's just "liberal" Catholics. Their own catechism supports the more open view. But I don't know if you'll find any of that here.

>no salvation outside the church

Your impulse is right. It's such an eminently wrong doctrine that it's immediately contradicted in the RCC's same catechism

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

>846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

>847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM

The Bible gives a different story: anyone who believes is saved

<John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

<Acts 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved

<Romans 10:14 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

At the same time, you're hinting at an unrelated question of the exclusivity of the Christian gospel, that Jesus lived sinless, died as a sacrifice, and was resurrected so you can have salvation from your sins. If you don't believe this, you are damned.

Jesus said himself:

<John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The burden is on us to do the work of the evangelist

<Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

>>765793

>It's such an eminently wrong doctrine that it's immediately contradicted in the RCC's same catechism

It's not. The Catechism teaches the obvious; that being outside of the Church isn't 1:1 with eternal damnation, which is a status exclusively reserved to Jesus Christ. If anyone outside the Church was de-facto eternally damned, there would be no point in preaching the Gospel. We already went through this with the haughty Gnostics.

>The Bible gives a different story: anyone who believes is saved

You proof-read the Bible. The Bible says to approach salvation as a foot-race; to approach God with fear and trembling.

You can lose a foot-race.

>If you don't believe this, you are damned.

You must also eat and drink of the flesh of Christ to enter Heaven, you do not.

>>765802

>which is a judgement exclusively reserved to Jesus Christ

fixed. nobody is damned or saved until Christ pronounces it at the end of days. OSAS is a heretical, satanic doctrine, obviously responsible for the ruin of many souls.

>>765793

The Bible does not give a story which is any different, and the Catholic church's declaration is not fundamentally different than what you would say. The main definition problem you have is that to you, the Church means believers generally, whereas the Catholic Church recognizes only other apostolic branches as the Church.

The exclusive claim that there is no salvation outside the Church, is thus not much more exclusive than the protestant claim that you must confess that Jesus is Lord with your mouth and heart in order to be saved.

It's not a big deal

>>765802

>to approach God with fear and trembling

This is precisely why it's hard for some to condemn others so easily. Especially condemning others who say they love Christ and basically assert the basic tenets of faith you/I/most Christians do (not speaking of Gnostics). Only the fearless would toss out threats of hellfire to these souls. It's best to just be like the tax collector who says "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner", rather than the Pharisee who goes up and down the list of how good he is and how he isn't like the tax collector.

>>765806

It is a big deal. Adding to the gospel makes a false gospel.

>>765782

>https://youtu.be/LIshZuj5Bqk

Sorry to break it to you, anon. Abusing God's mercy is a grave sin.

>>765793

Invincible ignorance is the only exemption to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. You do not have invincible ignorance.

>>765882

I'm pretty sure the Orthodox have a sort of invisible church theology, I've been looking into both Orthodoxy and Catholicism for a long time and I've always been under the impression that the Orthodox have a much more "softer" approach on hell and salvation than Roman Catholicism.

>>765911

If this is really the case with Orthodoxy, it's baffling that they don't evangelize. At least Catholicism has a long history of going to the ends of the earth to bring the church to people.

>>765792

There's no liberal view. The ultra literal version of it which implies that the only members of the church are the visible ones, leads to calvinism because God wanted everyone else to perish without even giving them means of salvation. Basically catholics would be luck because they'd be the elect.

For you and OP >>765782 here goes an explicit quote by Pius IX (so pre Vatican II for autists)

>Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm

Also that strict view leading to calvinist is a recent heresy made by Fr. Feeney who also denies the age old Catholic doctrine of baptist of desire and blood and is loved by the most fringe elements of the sede vacantist movement.

Btw there people "out" of the church become members of the same by implicit desire of baptism.

Imo its a rare thing but that it is possible it is.

>>765802

>The Bible says to approach salvation as a foot-race

I've encountered this several times from catholics on this site but I never see it explained

Are you talking about Philippians 3?

>>766046

<1 Corinthians 9:24–27

<Hebrews 12:1-29

>>766050

and you see these as indications that paul is striving to earn salvation?

>>765967

It is 100% possible that no one is saved outside of the visible church though.

>>766051

You were asking which verses

OP I read a book called "Basic Theology" by Charles C. Ryrie

It has a good section of it dedicated to the church and the various meaning of the church in theology.

I think one of the interpretations is the church is everyone that believes in god and seeks to know him.

I am New Thought aka "Christian Scientist".

My personal view is that Jesus is "The Way, The Truth, and The Life".

Which means anyone who follows the way, who seeks out the truth, and lives the life of devotion to God is saved.

To me all that talk about "confessing his name" and "being in the church" is not absolutely necessary. You can do those things and yet still not know him. Is a rose not still a rose by any other name? We must get to the essence of who Christ is and we DO NOT need the outward parts.

I think this scares Christians of various sorts who want to scare people into strictly identifying with and being centered within Christianity. Instead of having an attitude of religious openness and just being like "hey, Christianity is a most excellent way to God, and other religions preach some degree of the truth as well but if you take an interest in Christianity I can assure you it has brought me to God and will do the same for you" they just try to scare people. This also extends to science sometimes.

My attitude is to seek the truth always and in all things and that the whole of creation is testament to God.

I believe that I honor Jesus the Christ in this way.

Also when it comes to the trinity some Christians emphasize Jesus the man, or they want each part to held in equal measure, and although I haven't really encountered it there is probably some who emphasize the Father. Me personally, I believe all weight should be upon the Holy Spirit, and the other parts aren't so important; worth knowing about and appreciating of course but the Holy Spirit does the real work in the believer. I feel the Holy Spirit comes first for me.

>>765911

So do Catholics go to Hell according to Orthodox?

Also before someone says to me "not by works shall you be saved" well… not by empty works shall you be saved, but by works of faith you definitely will be. You can't buy salvation, you can't do some legal act with god to get saved, etc. (it's all shown in the Bible). BUT if you so order your life that you seek to know god and be like god in everything you do, then yes, you are destined for salvation. It may take a lonnnnggg time… but because of your love of god you will attain heaven. You will become perfect… and that does not involve an attitude of passivity without action. It involves both. The contemplative life and the active life, together.

Here are ways you can go wrong:

1. By seeking to do right in the eyes of men. Don't do this. Do right in the eyes of God.

2. By thinking you know enough about ethics that you can decide what is right or wrong. You have to act in accord with your current ethical understanding but you also need god to teach you, gradually, what true virtue is.

3. By uneven development. Do not neglect some part or parts of your life horribly while being entirely focused on one part. Work on the things that are hard and which may not give you the praise of men at all, that your character might be made the more noble. Don't be "a saint abroad" and a "crook at home" or such.

4. By sinning willfully and habitually, thinking god will save you later, so it doesn't matter. No, the process of salvation is continual, and you can prolong your suffering for your whole life doing this, and make things harder for you in death too.

Basically look at yourself. See where your weaknesses are and work to strengthen them.

>>766097

Expanding on point 2. You need to be open to learning these things and that means dropping previous ideas about morality when god, through the experiences of your life and through study, reveals to you how you were wrong.

>>765938

>The Orthodox churches in Africa are doing great evangelizing work though, and are growing very fast. So the cynicism/laziness/incompetence/lack of funds regarding evangelization is not a problem everywhere. But it's definitely a problem in the West.

Negroes will profess any belief offered to them as long as it means getting gibes so a faith growing in Africa really means nothing. It's an identity for them not a reality.

I'll start believing their faith is sincere when they start believing it while not getting any kind of worldly gains from it.

Even in the west most people go to church "for the community" or "to find a wife" and such. Just right now conditions are such that people rely more on the government than on church charity in the west, so, people espouse secular beliefs instead. In the past the church did more of the charity work and it had more "converts".

A large percentage of humans are willing to espouse a set of beliefs on impure motivations like this. If they even know what it is they're supposed to believe (most don't, these things are just identities, they couldn't even tell you the basics most of the time nevermind what sets apart different denominations in the same religion).

People like me, who seek after the truth/god only, and do so even when there is no worldly incentive to do so, and many potential obstacles like ostracization… are rare.

At one of the churches I go to, there's these two homeless drug addicts that always show up, and then when they get to eat the food they leave and NEVER stay for the sermon after. You can tell who is seriously there for God and who is there for other reasons by seeing who stays for the part after when we have our food. About half of the original population of church goers is emptied out by then.

>>766094

I've never heard that. Orthodox are sad by the innovations in the West.. but they (at least the cool ones) tend to have a saying: We don't always know where the Holy Spirit is working, but we do know where he is definitely working in one place. Something like that.

God's graces are not bound to anyone. We are bound to his graces instead.

hell isn't real and the soul isn't eternal, your body is your soul, the sinners will be destroyed in Gehenna fire during the second Resurrection after the 1000years in the kingdom age is complete and satan is loosed again to test the elect and then eternal judgement will happen to all the evil and the sinner will be dead for all eternity, Yahweh isn't as cruel as Christians believe it would seem

>>766114

There's more than just the soul and the body. Man is three parts. That you got this wrong should make you reassess this whole, uninformed worldview you have, but you probably won't.

>>766114

Bro. The soul is not eternal but the spirit is. Man is body, soul, and spirit. The body (your physical body) dies first. Later the soul (your mind and astral body) dies second. The spirit never dies and never is born. It is eternal.

>>766051

When did St. Paul ever quit striving for salvation? Was he not the one who advised us to mortify our body? Or that it was better to be celibate to better pursue God and His business? What's the point of either of these two things, if not to improve the striving of salvation?

Didn't Judas have Christ, and then lose Him?

>>766107

I don't know what "gibes" mean. If you are claiming that the very vibrant, very humble Orthodox churches of Rwanda and Congo are "fake Orthodox" who convert to get something like money in exchange, you're wrong (both because they are truly Orthodox in faith and practice, and because the Patriarchate of Alexandria isn't exactly rich to begin with so what kind of money is there to send?). The only thing they get in exchange for their conversion is eternal life.

>I'll start believing their faith is sincere when they start believing it while not getting any kind of worldly gains from it.

>A large percentage of humans are willing to espouse a set of beliefs on impure motivations like this. If they even know what it is they're supposed to believe (most don't, these things are just identities, they couldn't even tell you the basics most of the time nevermind what sets apart different denominations in the same religion).

Tell me, O wise one, what "worldly gains" the Orthodox in Congo, for instance, are getting. I think you don't know what you're talking about, which is an extremely bad thing since you are throwing false accusations at your brothers in Christ.

Incidentally I find the "not able to tell you the basics" syndrome to be much more prevalent among cradle Orthodox (especially from Russia) than from the Orthodox of African countries.

As for the rest of your little rant it's so off-topic that I shouldn't comment, but… are you really annoyed that your chuch is feeding homeless drug addicts without expecting something from them in return (like conversion)? And you feel superior to them because you stay for the homily (one of the least important parts of the Liturgy, which can be easily skipped, by the way)? In the same post, you have disparaged Orthodox churches in Africa, the Church feeding outcasts of society without expecting something in return, and, if your priest is aware of the latter, you are also disparaging your own spiritual father. And in all of this you have only exalted yourself ("PEOPLE LIKE ME see after the truth only! PEOPLE LIKE ME have pure intentions! PEOPLE LIKE ME are rare!").

How in the Hell do you not realize that you are praying the prayer of the Pharisee, not that of the Publican?

>>766147

Gibes meaning food, free stuff of any sort.

Also community and peace.

I'm also not talking about the churches themselves but the people who are going to them. In all probability the ones who lead the churches are likely real. The common people coming to them likely aren't.

>>766147

Do you seriously believe the average negro in an Orthodox church knows the doctrine btw? Again not talking about the priests running things there, but the ones who attend.

Oh and as for the homeless that I mentioned. I hate them because they are disruptive, they curse and they mock, they are racemixers, and it's all in one ear and out the other with them.

I've been homeless. I know good homeless people and I know horrible ones. I have nothing in principle against feeding the homeless. Also, in the case of drug addicts, if they ever became sincere about stopping, I would support that… but I hate the ones who are just bullshitting us all and got no intentions to stop.

Also I am opposed to foreign aid and to missionary work that involves going abroad. There was a missionary in I think Ireland that first checked to make sure every single person in Ireland was a believer before going to the New World. Only then did he go, after confirming everyone was a believer in his own country. Right now these missionaries are going to far away, foreign countries, and abandoning the people in their own countries. God says help your neighbor, not ignore your neighbors and take off to some country of unrelated people, who will give lip service to what you preach in order to gain the benefits.

>>766153

>Gibes meaning food, free stuff of any sort.

Again, the only "free stuff" they are given is eternal life.

Again, you accuse them of heterodoxy, but you have not given any justification beside "they are Negroes" and "people like me are rare". At least explain yourself.

>I'm also not talking about the churches themselves but the people who are going to them.

… What? The people who go to them -are- the Church.

>Do you seriously believe the average negro in an Orthodox church knows the doctrine btw? Again not talking about the priests running things there, but the ones who attend.

What is your problem, dude? First, stop attacking the orthodoxy or lack thereof of people you don't know. That is an extremely grave sin and you are scattering what Christ has given you. Second, yes, every "average negro in an Orthodox church" I've met was very knowledgeable about the faith and practice, and very much Orthodox. I don't know why exactly you have this fixation in your head that this is not likely.

>Oh and as for the homeless that I mentioned. I hate them because they are disruptive, they curse and they mock, they are racemixers, and it's all in one ear and out the other with them.

Then bring this issue to your priest, not to random strangers online! You are literally airing out the problems in your parish to strangers in public, instead of telling your priest that this is a problem!

>Also I am opposed to foreign aid and to missionary work that involves going abroad. There was a missionary in I think Ireland that first checked to make sure every single person in Ireland was a believer before going to the New World. Only then did he go, after confirming everyone was a believer in his own country. Right now these missionaries are going to far away, foreign countries, and abandoning the people in their own countries. God says help your neighbor, not ignore your neighbors and take off to some country of unrelated people, who will give lip service to what you preach in order to gain the benefits.

Again I'm not sure why you're talking about this. Each autocephalous Church has its jurisdiction already, you know. Concerning Africa, the Patriarchate of Alexandria (the See of which is already in Africa) handles it today, although it is true that the original boost for evangelization in Africa came from Greek priests and Alexandria sort of took over the operation later (to be fair the Patriarchate was extremely small and irrelevant for most of history, so it wouldn't have been able to set out into the heart of Africa on its own).

>>766160

As an addenum, about a third of all Orthodox people I've known were from Africa. (mostly Congo, and Ethiopian and Eritrean converts from Oriental Orthodoxy)

>>766160

<he typed this and articulated this coherently in 6 minutes

We got a smart one here boys.

>>766182

Why are you mocking me? Yes, I'm an idiot and I am slow both to think and to type, I am not going to pretend otherwise. Do you have another point to make other than "lol look at this guy"?

>>766185

Nope, I was simply fascinated by how well you where able to respond in all the correct dimensions while raising your own points. Really, it was a compliment. Stop dogging your self.

>>766160

>Again, the only "free stuff" they are given is eternal life.

>Again, you accuse them of heterodoxy, but you have not given any justification beside "they are Negroes" and "people like me are rare". At least explain yourself.

Okay tell me this anon. What is so magical about these negroes that you would regard them as all being true and sincere believers, while you don't seem to question me on saying that the average Church goer in the west is not?

I think you are doing the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" thing. Either that or western countries truly are becoming shitholes and I should be thinking about moving to Africa in order to be in the company of better people.

As for explaining myself.

Don't you observe these things for yourself?

How people wear religions like costumes? What motivates them being anything but "the way, the truth, and the life"?

Maybe I am just surrounded by the worst people but everywhere I go I see the majority with wrong motives and little knowledge.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Hosea 4:6

>>766195

>while you don't seem to question me on saying that the average Church goer in the west is not?

You are talking about your experience, why should I claim you're spreading falsehood? I'm not where you are.

Likewise, I am talking about my experience, so do not claim that I am spreading falsehood.

If you want to shift the subect to "the average churchgoer in the West", we can do that. As an Orthodox Christian living in a Western country, the "average churchgoer" is of any origin (Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Romanian, French, Chilean, Greek, Lebanese, Afghani, Iraqi, Lybian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Rwandese, Congolese), so that includes so-called "negroes". And the vast majority are "true and sincere believers" as you put it (but the group that is the most sloppy regarding taking the religion seriously is the Russians). So, if what you want is for me to address your claim that the average churchgoer in the West is a lazy scumbag who wants to belong to a group but not be truly religious, then my stance is that this isn't true according to my experience at all (although the Russians who are lazy about the faith and step outside in the middle of the liturgy to take a smoke are a bit of an embarassment).

>>766203

>How people wear religions like costumes? What motivates them being anything but "the way, the truth, and the life"?

I do observe this, although among a minority of people, all of which are either Russian or Romanian.

But it seems like you've completely disregarded what I pointed out above - that you sound like you are exalting yourself as one of great faith, while those other people are lazy scumbags and an insult to religion. If you're Orthodox, you should know by now to live by the motto of "look in your own plate" (sometimes literally so, considering how much we fast).

>>766216

I completely forgot about the Romanis. To be fair, they usually don't know much of the language if at all, and they're extremely poor. Not having a car or a good grasp of the language, they rarely come to church, although when they do the church becomes packed. They have a very solid cult of the saints at home though.

>>766217

I'm not Orthodox. I am New Thought.

>>766216

Okay then. Well I universalize my own experiences.

Do you agree with my sentiment though that we should focus on those closest to us (both in blood and in physical proximity) first and move outward from there? I don't like missionaries going to other countries when they got work to do in their own country. I feel quite honestly too that in Asia and Africa they just get into these things to learn English, to make connections, to get free stuff, etc. with the ultimate aim of moving to a white country.

That said I have also often thought stuff like "instead of importing these people here, we need to export our culture to them, so they can make their own countries better".

So tell me, from what you know, do you reckon these Christians abroad just plan to move to white countries, or do you think they will take the teachings of Christ and use them to benefit their own people and that they will retain or even strengthen their racial consciousness?

Also, what do you think about these so called "Christians" in Africa, who then go on to behave in horrendous ways? Does crime ever go down in Africa just because they become Christian?

Random side thought: I read recently that Satan isn't actually "evil" and his purpose rather is to test our faith according to the jews. That the idea of Satan being evil was a thing that started in Christianity.

Makes me wonder; should we be testing each others faith when we see fit?

>>766229

>I am New Thought.

what protestant sect is this

>>766134

u wut m8

>>766231

you're in the dark running into walls

>>766235

pharisees has easily become the new "idolatry", it's slung around with no particular sense, it's just a pseudo-biblical term for things anon does not like

>>766234

You didn't answer anything in my post about what Satan represents. Is he the principle of evil or he who tests our faith?

>>766232

>what protestant sect is this

I would not categorize it as protestant, orthodox, catholic, or any other major division of Christianity you can think of.

>>765782

This is personally also my greatest gripe as a catholic.

I simply can't fathom how a God that loves all of his creation didn't inspire the other religions.

I think God inspired all religions, and those that make an earnest effort to approach him can be saved through faith and divine grace.

However some religions are outright twisted and evil (judaism and satanism specifically) because their entire philosophy is about rebellion against God or the rejection of Jesus.

I don't think buddhists, hindus, sikhs and muslims go to hell.

Depending on their devotion and divine grace, they might be saved (I hope).

I believe there is only one God, and people sought him out across the world way before Jesus came to Earth. I think that God is graceful enough to have given them signs and revelations of himself, hence the great religion of the east came to be.

>inb4 easterners are polytheists

Like the greeks, easterners also achieved the conclusion that there is ultimately but one God.

New Thought is basically its own category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Thought

>>766237

>Is he the principle of evil or he who tests our faith?

Neither, Satan is Satan. He was the highest of all the angels, who fell due to pride. Trying to reproduce him as some sort of allegorical rendering is occultic (almost talmudic, really).

there is no "principle of evil", evil is the privation of good (God). "he who tests our faith" isn't even exclusively satan, the urges of our own body in the state of original sin and the temptations of the world are also sources of "tests of our faith".

ANYTHING that is not of God, that is of men, is of Satan.

>I would not categorize it as protestant, orthodox, catholic, or any other major division of Christianity you can think of.

Protestant/new age sect it is then.

>>766240

not an argument

>>766242

>Protestant/new age sect it is then.

Well what do you categorize Swedenborg under?

>>766229

... Oh. I thought you were Orthodox, I didn't look at your post history ITT and thought you were Orthodox, since you were originally replying to this: >>765938

>Do you agree with my sentiment though that we should focus on those closest to us (both in blood and in physical proximity) first and move outward from there?

We should focus on those closest to us, regardless of blood relations. People obssess over making changes through country-wide laws, or going to a far away country to evangelize, while ignoring the poor and the needy that are immediately in front of them, and not educating the people around them about Christianity. Hierarchs of the Church, like Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, have talked about this, although even St. John Chrysostom addressed this issue, regarding those Christians who would donate to the Church to let it do the charity worrk, while ignoring themselves the people in front of them. When we help the needy we do not do a transaction to satisfy God. What God wants us for us to love the needy and the outcasts, and delegating other people to do it for you is not the right way to do it.

>So tell me, from what you know, do you reckon these Christians abroad just plan to move to white countries, or do you think they will take the teachings of Christ and use them to benefit their own people and that they will retain or even strengthen their racial consciousness?

I don't care in the slightest about "racial consciousness", but I think I have made my point sufficiently clear. Christianity is not a Palestinian religion that is exported to other countries, Christianity is a catholic, universal religion, and each nation is free to give their own expression of Orthodoxy. Not that I deny that there are communities that adhere to Orthodoxy mainly because they want to get perks out of it, though. This is what happened when the Bulgars were evangelized by Constantinople - King Boris wanted political perks most of all, and therefore enjoyed to fuel the fire between Rome and Constantinople in the hope that the Church of Bulgaria would be recognized as a Patriarchate.

This isn't the situation in Congo and Rwanda though. They consider Orthodox Christianity to be -their- religion, not a foreign religion that they latch onto in the hope of getting something out of it. If anything, becoming Orthodox rather than Catholic or Protestant doesn't help them much with any ambition to move West or something, since Orthodoxy is mostly Eastern.

>Also, what do you think about these so called "Christians" in Africa, who then go on to behave in horrendous ways? Does crime ever go down in Africa just because they become Christian?

I don't really care about non-Orthodox Christians, so I can't help answer that question.

>>766243

who?

>Emanuel Swedenborg was a Swedish Lutheran theologian, scientist, philosopher, revelator and mystic who inspired Swedenborgianism.

swedish lutheran = smells protestant to me

>>766242

>Protestant/new age sect it is then.

I don't believe anything protestants believe though.

As for "New Age" that is very offensive to me.

I guess you could call it gnostic but it's not very much like the older gnosticism that is expressed in the Pistis Sophia.

>>766247

I'll let you and the orthodox get chummy

>>766229

By the way, a Greek documentary about Congolese Orthodoxy came out recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY3N_wf28UI

>>766246

Look up William Walker Atkinson. He is the one whose words I believe.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_New_Thought_terms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Church_of_Christ,_Scientist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Panentheism

>>766244

>I don't care in the slightest about "racial consciousness"

You should. The entire bible is the story of a tribe keeping itself separate from the rest and warring upon all others. Nation = a people. Not an arbitrary geographical boundary or a piece of paper that says you're a citizen. It's a people bound together by blood first and faith second. Throughout the bible there are passages expressing a racial consciousness where one is supposed to care about their own people.

Even when you care for the stranger, it should be in terms of, being at peace with your neighbors, and not creating unnecessary wars. You don't mix with them though.

>>766242

I'm pretty sure I wasn't having an argument with you :)

I will be back later, going to give you time to read that pdf.

>>766253

The Church is the new Israel. We are a part of the people of God not by blood, but by faith. Our nation is the Kingdom of God, the Church. Marriage with non-Christians (and even, historically, non-Orthodox Christians) is forbidden.

So, I actually agree completely that the Bible forbids race-mixing. The Law of Moses has prescriptions against marrying non-Jews. The people of Israel were fooled into idolatry again and again because of the sin of mixing with pagan tribes, inevitably leading to worshipping their gods. Ezra (in Ezra 10) and Nehemiah (in Nehemiah 13) had to take drastic measures to purify Israel from the co-mingling it had done during the exile.

But the New Testament reveals that there are truly two races: the race of Adam and the race of Christ. The Jews' tribal isolationism was a pedagogue, a prefiguration of this. The epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans clarify that the "seed of Abraham" is not by blood, but by faith.

Your pdf focuses almost exclusively on the OT (and its interpretation is more or less correct, I have no clue why it feels the need to be so convulted when you can just look at the Hebrew or Greek text and easily see what is meant). It fails to address how this concept, like many others in the OT, is re-interpreted in light of Christ in the NT.

What is the church? St Bellarmine gives the following definition

As thus understood, the definition of the Church given by Bellarmine is that usually adopted by Catholic theologians: "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth"

Catholic ecclesiology states that one must possess the external and internal bonds of unity, ecclesiastical and sacramental. One is bound interiorly through the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity and externally by submission to the hierarchy, profession of faith and sacramental unity. St Pius X clarified that the church is one and the same and these are different angles to view the one church, the interior bonds of communion with the church does not extend beyond the visible society of the church, and while baptized non Catholics have imperfect sacramental communion, that alone does not allow salvation.

St Chrysostom says the following about an invisible church

“It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the church to be made invisible.”

Here are the three acts of the extra ordinary magesterium we must read all subsequent interpretation in light of

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Vatican II upheld this teaching fully and Lumen Gentium and the catechism state that it is impossible for one to knowingly reject the church and be saved, salvation outside the church is due to exceptions made by God of baptized persons due to ignorance, Protestant churches are not a normative avenue of salvation

Remember the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, bearing the marks of infallibility, authority and indefectability. The church is a visible society composed of men, when Jesus instructed us on how to deal with a heretic, when he was expelled and treated as a heathen and a publican there was no other church to join, the same case in 1 John, the one church is the body of Christ alone.

Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

— St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

Saint Ambrose (died A.D. 397): “Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. …Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward.” (The Fathers of the Church )

Saint Jerome (died A.D. 420): “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. …This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. …And as for heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible way that the Church’s enemies are also my enemies.” (Manual of Patrology and History of Theology )

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem )

>>766143

No, Judas was a devil and never saved

The "striving" and "pressing on" is never in doubt of having salvation

>>766307

I do not recognize this quote of St. Ambrose, but either way I would be careful to use it in the context you are using. The other quotes are fine, of course, but St. Ambrose certainly didn't intend to make a reference to papal primacy here (again, if the quote is legitimate at all - I don't recognize it, and your source is too vague).

Ambrose also said:

>[The primacy of Peter is a] primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. (The Sacrament of the Icarnation of Our Lord 4.32)

>Strive that you may be a rock. Therefore seek the Rock, not outside you, but inside you. Your action is your rock, your mind is your rock. Your hosue is built upon this rock . . . Your Faith is a rock, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you will be a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is upon a rock. (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 6.98)

>[Proper confession of Christ as God is] the foundation that prevails against all heresies . . . [this] faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (The Sacrament of the Incarnation of the Lord, 5.34)

>Christ is a Rock . . . [and] did not deny the grace of even this title to His disciples, so that he is a true Peter because from the Rock he has the firmness and constancy, the steadfastness of faith. (Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 6.98)

But again, the other quotes are fine. St. Jerome definitely meant papal primacy (even though his earlier stance was more "egalitarian" so to speak).

However, let me ask you about Vatican II. I agree that Vatican II clearly means that one cannot consciously reject the Church, knowing it is the Church of Christ, and yet be saved. But there is a huge difference between simply being in schism/heresy and acknowledging that the Catholic Church is the Church but still rejecting it. The latter seems to be the current Catholic interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church" but it seems to give so much wiggle room that it essentially shuts down the original meaning, and effectively contradicts what Catholicisim had historically believed before then. Could you elaborate?

>>766324

Vatican II reaffirmed the doctrine of EENS, Catholic ecclesiology doesn’t work in a way where on council “overrides” another, they are read in light of eachother. They specifically say no one can knowingly reject the church and be saved in Lumen gentium, do not confuse the ecumenical tone for specific definition of doctrine. The bishops and hierarchy have been soft and their attitude does not reflect per se the acts of the council. Lumen Gentiums formulation of the doctrine is in line with St Thomas for the most part with the only exception being invincible ignorance.

Vatican II was also a pastoral council, it changed the manner in which the church presents the truth but did not define any new truths or change the traditional definitions

>This is the one doctrine of Catholicism that I've had the hardest time with personally,

Good, because this is how the Catholic Church exalts itself to the status of Godhood and blasphemes the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that he is the way and the truth and the life, not a religion claiming to have been built by Peter when in reality it’s the invention of a pagan emperor.

It’s because the Catholic Church has arrogantly declared itself to be the source of salvation, it’s been given over to all kinds of wickedness, which is why the satanic jesuits control the church and most priests are homosexuals or pedophiles.

>>766324

But I also won’t lie and say there aren’t issues with the documents themselves

>>766334

But what is "knowingly rejecting the Church"? Certainly not everyone who is Protestant or Orthodox is currently "knowingly rejecting the Church". They do not even believe the Catholic Church is the Church at all.

By the way, could you explain to me what is "invincible ignorance"? Isn't it that someone who dies without knowing about Catholicism or having a way to know about it can be saved?

>>766338

I like Vatican II. It balances out Vatican I and gets really close to the Orthodox notion of "no conciliarity without primacy, no primacy without conciliarity". I'm concerned though because it goes in a direction that is neither in line with traditional Catholicism nor traditional Orthodoxy (the wording surrounding the Jews borders on dual covenant theology, for instance).

>>766334

I disagree with some of the collegiality introduced at the council and it’s the source of all the liturgical abuse we see in th Church, I would rather have seen them move in the direction of Eucharistic ecclesiology and communion espoused by Meyerdorff.

There has not been a dogmatic definition of invincible ignorance yet so the safest bet is to see what St Thomas’ formulation is as his elevated status gives him precedent in lieu of a dogmatic declaration

I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

Now Neo Thomists have elaborated upon this and ignorance is not merely a deprivation of knowledge but a barrier preventing you from even knowing you should be searching for this knowledge, we have an obligation to search for truth and form our conscience, the modern commentaries on the notion place doubt on how many people in a modern, first world nation could claim this but at the end of the day only God knows

>>766261

>Marriage with non-Christians (and even, historically, non-Orthodox Christians) is forbidden.

Really? Point this scripture out. It's like, being one of the sunken on the Titanic. And just because you see a straggling random in the sea, you're all like….. "winnie the pooh that….. we are of the Titanic vessel. Screw any straggling ship wrecked buffoon who was endangered out at sea who wants to get aboard our ship.

But the. Again it's like…… Ehhh…. I have to use logic at some point.

>>766231

>I read recently that Satan isn't actually "evil" and his purpose rather is to test our faith according to the jews.

>according to the Jews

Who in their sane mind would speak ill of their father.

also read the OT, namely Genesis and Wisdom.

>>766340

Those protestants and orthodoxes can think for themselves at read right?

In the protestant case they theology is self serving so of course deep inside they know they are wrong.

I doubt anyone is truly ignorant about the reality of the church except people hwo live in the middle of the jungle though.

>>766335

>catholics believe God himself founded the Chirch

>they somehow should say that it was OK to have other ideas than the ones given by God.

Get out with your shitty tolerance of other theological opinions.

There's no freedom of though in God.

The Truth is only one.

>>766365

>There is no freedom of thought

Quintessentially Catholic

Augustine and his buddy Plato would be so pleased with you

>>766346

>Now Neo Thomists have elaborated upon this and ignorance is not merely a deprivation of knowledge but a barrier preventing you from even knowing you should be searching for this knowledge,

That's true for tribes in America before the Spaniards and similar since it was impossible to know even the existence of the Catholic Church.

As for people living today there's no such thing as invencible ignorance.

>Augustine and his buddy Plato would be so pleased with you

Thanks. Althogh Plato had nothing do to with us he was a cool dude.

>>766369

>>766367

>>766357

>Really? Point this scripture out.

I mean, the Apostle Paul literally addresses this. 2 Corinthians 6:11-18:

>Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

>“I will dwell in them

>And walk among them.

>I will be their God,

>And they shall be My people.”

>Therefore

>“Come out from among them

>And be separate, says the Lord.

>Do not touch what is unclean,

>And I will receive you.”

>“I will be a Father to you,

>And you shall be My sons and daughters,

>Says the Lord Almighty.”

He also addresses the case in which a person converts after already marrying a non-believer, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16:

>But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

>winnie the pooh that….. we are of the Titanic vessel. Screw any straggling ship wrecked buffoon who was endangered out at sea who wants to get aboard our ship.

I mean, there is a difference between "do not marry someone who is outside the Church" and "do not have fellowship of any kind with non-believers". 1 Corinthias 5:9-11:

>I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

>>766365

>schismatics know deep inside they are wrong lol

You haven't met many people in life, have you?

Pro-tip: no one who isn't Catholic cares about Catholicism, except for dumb Evangelicals who think the Pope is the antichrist.

>>766384

>no one who isn't Catholic cares about Catholicism, except for dumb Evangelicals who think the Pope is the antichrist.

Exactly they are going to perish if they don't change.

And I was talking about heretics btw.

Schismatics by definition are orthodox in faith, but only separated from Rome. Ivan that lived in the Russian countryside in the 15th century isn't guilty of the sin of schism.

>>766395

Although the path that the orthodox Church took after the schism is borderline heresy but nothing like protestants, not even in a million years.

>>766395

If anyone rejects Catholic doctrine, he is a heretic, by your standards. If Ivan who lives in the Russian countryside in the 15th century is obedient to what his priest teaches, then he is necessarily a heretic for you.

>Although the path that the orthodox Church took after the schism is borderline heresy but nothing like protestants, not even in a million years.

"Borderline" heresy? The councils of Florence and Vatican I declared as dogma several things that the Orthodox explicitly reject. Do not be a hypocrite, either we are heretics for you or we are not. The only thing we have above Protestants, from where you stand, is apostolic succession, but it does not help for salvation.

>>766490

Then you are right. I forgot issues like papal infallibility which no one must deny. Then orthodoxes are truly heretics.

>If Ivan who lives in the Russian countryside in the 15th century is obedient to what his priest teaches.

He was really ignorant of what the true Church taught and it was impossible for him to know better. Besides he had access to the sacraments.

The only Catholics that think Catholicism is Christian are the ignorant ones at the bottom of the food chain. They have no idea that their church is a satanic coven practicing Babylonian mysticism because their role in the church it to basically act as a human shield preventing the truth from coming to light

>>767048

Reminder that “Babylonian mysticism” is a boogeyman invented by the SDAz

>>767048

Source: my ass aka Satan

>>765782

Correction, no salvation outside of CHRIST

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. If you got any problem with that you can complain with God when die.

>>767613

Christ gave His authority to the Apostles though. You deny them, you deny Him. Remember?

>>767709

>You will not find agreement.

I think you misspelled protestantism, either that or you've been brainwashed like winnie the pooh by your pastors to believe that the book the Catholic Church wrote compiled is against her.

>>766320

You aren't saved as long as you live. You don't get a "salvation token" when you just beleive the divinity of Christ. Even demons believe. And even those who believe and have works at a certain time can lose them.

Once saved always saved, yes, but you are not saved, nor is anyone who lives.

>>765782

Just because the righteous people died without knowing the love of Christ don't go to the kingdom heaven, it doesn't mean that they get casted into hell. There are many layers of Hades, and some of those souls exist in the state of happiness (although imperfect happiness) while waiting for the second coming of Christ. By the end of times, they will be risen from death and join the saints in God's kingdom.

>>765882

The orthodox believe in the Bosom of Abraham. Read more books.

>>767712

>You aren't saved as long as you live

Prove it

The Bible says if I believe I have everlasting life John 3:16

It says Jesus Christ is "in you" 2 Cor 13:5

It says you can "know you have eternal life" 1 John 5:13

It says you are "sealed with the promised holy spirit" Ephesians 1:13

Maybe you don't know you're saved, but I do.

Hard mode: exclusively use scripture for your argument, give me no church statements

>>766107

>Negroes will profess any belief offered to them as long as it means getting gibes so a faith growing in Africa really means nothing. It's an identity for them not a reality.

I'll start believing their faith is sincere when they start believing it while not getting any kind of worldly gains from it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Martyrs

Stay humble.

>>767726

>you must do x to be saved

the only proper answer is have faith.

>>767711

The philosophizing of the catholics, orthodox, and even many protestants is in contradiction, even if only indirectly, to the message of Christ. The only truth that matters is the simple truth of Christ. No amount of quoting church fathers, who are NOT Christ and do NOT speak for God can change that.

>>767726

>>767733

The concept of afterlife in christian dogma is yet to be perfected. There's little evidence about what it's like it in the scripture. However, it is canon enough to say that the righteous people who died won't suffer in the afterlife, but they won't find perfect happiness either until the end of days where God picks them up from death. Romans 1 and 2 are enough to support this.

>Abraham's Bosom is a part of Hades

I didn't imply that. I said that while the orthodox believe in abraham's bosom, the catholics believe in hades. I was just replying to the orthodox anon.

>>767763

>Hades is another name for Hell

Many catholic theologians don't think that hades and hell are interchangeable. Hell is equated to Gehenna, the place with neverending fire. Frankly the place of where the righteous unbelievers go is not stated in the Catechism, so we have some freedom to speculate.

>>767766

Righteous means morally right. It's written in Romans 1, as an image of God, humans are born with His attributes. Even those who don't know His salvation through Jesus Christ should know God because they were born with the ability to perceive these invisible and divine attributes.

So, it's possible for unbelievers to be righteous, but it's not possible for them to be saved. However, God is just, and no righteous shall be tormented.

>>765882

Kallistos Ware has openly refuted what you said. He has said numerous times that there are visible and invisible members of the Church and that we will not know who belongs to what fully until the final judgement.

Your comments?

>>767960

Met. Kallistos Ware is not my bishop. I am not under his spiritual care. I don't even live in the same country.

Incidentally I am not surprised that an ex Anglican would adhere to invisible church theory.

What is true is that among those who are not Orthodox, not one is in the Church. Among those who are Orthodox, we cannot know who is a full member of the Church or not, since grave sin cuts one off from the Body of Christ and such people will have the same fate as unbelievers if they die like this.

>>767771

"To be righteous" and "to be justified" are the same words, in case you did not know. The New Testament is unambiguous that faith is a requirement for salvation, and salvation and justification are generally understood as being the same thing in Orthodoxy. The epistle to the Hebrews even says that if one does not believe God exists they have absolutely no chances to be saved.

>>767628

>>767628

I reject the fake replacement Christ that are the popes and thier corrupted church.

>>766057

>I think one of the interpretations is the church is everyone that believes in god and seeks to know him.

That almost echos what St. Nicetas said about how "The Church is simply the community of the Saints."