www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Moscow Patriarch against Turkey in EU

The problem is not that modern society believes that God is merciful. He is! The problem is that much of modern society believes God is merciful to the point of being stupid. Somehow, the belief seems to persist that when we explain things to God, he will see everything our way and nearly everyone will be saved. I don't think God is stupid, and I believe he knows us and sees through us quite well.

Marduk,

How does your recently expressed view that those who worship one God (with some other restrictions) are worshiping the True God square with your earlier reference to St. Paul and the Greek worship of an unknown god?

I would like to take exception to your statement that the Orthodox Church is not Catholic (C):

//I'm a bit confused vis a via the Orthodox situation. Catholic thought on the subject is admittedly obscure and seems to shift through time. Now, and I say this with the deepest respect and politeness I can convey without being face-to-face: yes, I think everyone's chances are better in the Catholic Church than any other. Else, why would I be Catholic? Else, why would you be Orthodox if you didn't think it was the surest road to salvation? But, if anyone outside ""Catholicism"" is saved, it would be the Orthodox first.//

I invite you to read the following:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catholicity_church_florovsky.htm

We have been Catholic for some 2,000 years.

JoeS

Dear Brother Cizinec:

This I know for certain: Greek/Roman mythology consisted of a family of gods begotten by a previous family of gods. The head of the family of gods in the time of Paul was Zeus/Jupiter who was begotten by Chronos/Saturn. The unknown god is the father of Chronos/Saturn. This unknown god was the First Cause/Principle of all other deities and all of creation.

Beyond that, I really do not know, but I am certain that St. Paul knew enough about what the Athenians believed in order for him to equate their unknown god with the God of the Bible. I can only surmise that the Athenians assigned the same attributes to their unknown god that I have suggested of a Supreme Being.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings,
Marduk

I would also like to add that not a few early Fathers believed that the gods of the Greeks/Romans were actually fallen angels. This seems to coincide quite nicely with St. Paul's conception that the unknown god of the Greeks/Romans was the First Principle (the Hebrew/Muslim/Christian God) who created all these other beings, these being angels originally who were fallen and came to tempt men with all errors in their guises as gods.

Further, monotheism is not unknown among the early Greek philosophers, notably Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. One of these (I forget which one) even chided the Greeks for their worship of so many gods when in fact there was only one. I believe this one was condemned for being an athiest for not believing in many gods.

Blessings,
Marduk

By asserting that Muslims worship the One God I am by no means asserting that Muhammad is a prophet! He may well have made it all up, or he may have been deluded, either by mental illness or by demons. However, the God he describes is the One God. Yes, Muslims have accused Christians of idolatry, just as Christians here on the forum are accusing Muslims of the same, but that is not the best tradition of either faith.
In asserting that the God of Islam is the One God I am not by any means denying that Islam is problematic in many ways or that militant Islam is a threat. However, we should grant that Islamic hatred of the West is understandable, as our culture has evolved into a purveyor of global decadence...
You know, 19th century rationalists deduced that Christ was a glorified fertility myth, basing their arguments on a lot of the same evidence that is cited here against Islam: there are numerous myths of a god, born of a virgin, who dies and then rises again in world mythology. Many Christian shrines and churches are built on the sites of pagan worship, many Christian saints have precedents in pagan gods [eg, St Brigid and the Celtic goddess Brigid], and most Christian feast days were built on the foundations of pagan festivals. I believe this line of reasoning has been pretty much discredited these days. There is plenty to argue about with Islam [as well as many points of agreement to affirm] without insulting their faith in terms reminiscent of fundamentalist anti-Catholicism!
Of course Islam falls far below Catholic standards morally; so does Judaism, so does Protestantism or even Orthodoxy [eg, contraception]. That does not mean that they worship demons, only that their knowledge lacks the fullness of revealed truth.

JoeS,

Interesting article. I wll need to read this three times before I can digest it all. At first glance, however, I am more impressed by the straightforwardness of the Eastern Schism entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

... and I also take this opportunity to point back to the "schismatics" clause in the aforementioned infallible statement of Pope Eugene. To which, and more directly to your point, I will add:

"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."

- Pope Boniface VIII - Unam Sanctam.

Here's another toughie: an infallible statement by another pope requiring membership in one of the Catholic Churches subject to the pontiff. Now, the Orthodox may not agree on the infallibility of this, but no Catholic can rightly deny it. Certainly the Orthodox are not now subject to the Pontiff. Thus, I say again that if we choose to deny this, we are gambling our salvation. I really do hate to be harsh about this in such a pleasant forum, but this point cannot be stressed enough.

Even the Muscovite Patriarch needs to be subordinated to the Pontiff, for his salvation.

So, Booth, I suppose this means the Orthodox worship a different god, too?
The Orthodox possess all the means of sanctification: valid sacraments, including remission of sins, apostolic authority, Sacred Tradition, etc. What a cruel hoax on the part of God that in spite of this they are damned, merely for lacking juridical unity with the Roman See! Are you a Feenyite, by chance? Come clean.

Daniel,

Funny you should mention that. I had that same thought some time back, although I don;t think I ever voiced it.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Booth,

The Orthodox do not need the Pope of Rome for our salvation. The Pope of Rome has himself stated that the Orthodox have the means of salvation since our Sacraments are valid. I will grant that disunity with the Pope of Rome based on malice will incur the wrath of God, and even loss of salvation, but I doubt the very great majority of Orthodox are in this situation.

It is strange that you would appeal to submission to the Pope of Rome in your post, yet seem to feel free to judge which statements of the more current Popes of Rome you feel are infallible. Show more respect for your heirarhcs, and perhaps your argument will be more plausible.

Theotokos pray for our unity!

Blessings,
Marduk

I think that Booth is ready for the League of Little Popes, an organization I am starting for those who set themselves up as the judges of orthodoxy within the Church, those who pronounce on the correct interpretation of doctrine and the errors of the current Pope. Maybe we should address him as "Your Holiness".
And Booth- you expressed an interest on another thread in visiting an Orthodox church. Please spare them your presence if you cannot muster more respect than you have shown here.
I tell you, the more I read your posts the more I am convinced that you worship a different God than I do.

I've avoided hostile personal attacks, and I've received two from you since my last post, and previous ones which I've ignored. In the name of charity and tolerance you attack me, no less. I'm very disappointed.

This will be my last post in this "Moscow Patriarch" thread. I'm shaking the dust from my sandals.

So now I suppose I'll defend myself from these ad hominem attacks. No, I'm not a Feenyite. I agree with about 75% of what I've read of him, but he makes firm comments about unknown elements of salvation. I simply err on the side of caution. I also don't appreciate some of his clerical disobedience.

So, taking past popes at their word when they speak infallibly makes me a "little pope?" Whatever. I would suggest brushing up on what is infallible, what is prudential, and what is non-Magisterial:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IV

Further, Iconophile, it's not a cruel hoax of God, it's a sad consequence of free will.

MardukM - thank you for your more pleasant discourse. His Holiness was not speaking in an infallible manner, and his comments contradict infallible statements of the past. In some senses, he's voicing an opinion. I think a gravely erroneous one that endangers the salvation of many.

Now that I've been castigated, labeled, and had words put in my mouth, let me apologize for being concerned about the salvation of humanity.

I will not comment on whether I agree with Mr. Booth or not. I believe, however, that Iconophile's comments to Mr. Booth are beyond the bounds of charity.

Well, I'll leave the [misunderstood] humor aside and address the issue in more a theological vein.
Yes, the Fathers said "outside the Church there is no salvation" and yes, Pope Eugene [among others] taught that this means union with the Roman pontiff. However, there are so many nuances to this that it can't be taken in a fundamentalist way. That is, the person rejecting the Petrine office and Roman primacy must be aware of the teaching and accept it as true [that would be "aware of serious matter" in the traditional Latin criteria for mortal sin], he would have to have sufficient reflection upon this truth and reject it with the fullness of his will. I submit that this sort of thing has been nearly non-existent in the history of the Church. Modern Orthodox and Protestant believers are taught a distorted notion of what the Catholic Church teaches about papal authority and are not held accountable for their "invincible ignorance" [a wonderful Roman term]; though hard-headed Romans who present this doctrine in a damning fundamentalist way are, perhaps, held accountable for causing their brothers to stumble.
The interpretation of this doctrine I have presented here is the way the Living Church understands it. Booth and others like him who teach a restrictive salvation are not thinking with the Church.
I do think a League of Little Popes is a good idea; as there would be quite a diverse crowd [Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice would be an honored member] meetings would be quite lively, often ending in fisticuffs...

PS: I find it curious that Booth in his posts is consigning Orthodox and Protestant Christians, baptized into Christ and, in the case of the Orthodox, possessing all the means of salvation, to hellfire, yet it is my admittedly wiseacre response that is labelled "uncharitable"!
On a forum that is supposed to be for both Catholic and Orthodox believers I find this incongruous, to say the least.