Guest,
Considering John Paul II has emphasized the Catholicity of Orthodox Christians, not to mention the possibility of salvation for all baptized indviduals (and even those in non-Christians faiths who do the best with their limited light), I find it hard to believe John Paul II ever said one had to be a a Roman Catholic to get to heaven. I would like to see the citation on this one.

John Paul has emphasized, consistent with patristic thought, the idea that outside the Church there is no salvation. However, as the catechism and the teaching of JPII and others show, on account of valild baptism in a any denomination, one is put in an incomplete communion with the Church. Hence, Christians of all denominations may be saved.

I don't want to get us off topic here, but I think its important that on a Catholic board, Catholic Teaching is not misunderstood.

Blessings,
David

Dear David,

Even Vatican II said that, if one knows the Catholic Church to be the true Church and refuses to join it, one cannot be saved.

Add to this the interesting claim of the Council of Florence "Cantate Domino" that shcismatics, heretics, Jews and pagans cannot be saved, unless before the end of their lives they join the Catholic Church.

This teaching is often nuanced nowdays, by saying that "implicit faith" or an "unconscious wish" to join the Catholic Church suffices, but the absolute claim is still there.

Which makes me wonder, what is the difference between a Jew in 1450 A.D. and a Jew in 2006? If a Jew could not be saved at the time of the Council of Florence unless he became a Catholic, but Vatican II admitted Jews could be saved without being Catholics, what changed?

It seems the teaching of the Catholic Church has changed....

St Seraph,

Interesting comments! Where did you find the statements of Vatican II and the Council of Florence "Cantate Domino"? Can you "cut and paste" them for all of us?

Also you mentioned earlier you'd join the CEC if they make it through this mess. I'll go on the record and state that I will return to the CEC as a porter if they will answer all the charges. I will celebrate New Year's Eve at the Cathedral if they have 20 million members by 2012.

My sister alumna MaryK, illustrated it best in her last statement concerning the analogy of the broken clay pot- the church. What sense is there in creating a new communion IOT unite the other twenty thousand plus communions? You don't repair a broken pot by breaking it further.

I know you are searching, my friend. May the Lord bless you and yours on this wonderful yet scandalous, paradoxical, and paleo-orthodox journey.

Respectfully,
Ken Follis

This is a good point worthy of discussion.

I am moving it to the "Questions About the Catholic Church" topic.

Blessings,

Can Jews, schismatics and others be saved?

I lack the computer skills to paste and forward information on the Council of Florence, forgive me! I trust David or someone will also forward this message to the appropriate board for discussion. I will try to find the Vatican II quotes that Jews may be saved without being Catholics or Christians, though I thought that was common knowledge; it was a decree on Non-Christian religions issued in 1965.

Anyway, the quote from Florence seems quite clear as to the intent of those bishops. I found one translation at www.dailycatholic.org/history/17ecum11.htm which is taken from the Bull of Union with the Copts issued on 4 February 1442.

"It [The Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood for the sake of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the catholic church."

I don't have the Latin text before me, but it sounds pretty much like other translations I have read.

What is startling to me is that even "those who shed their blood for the sake of Christ" are considered damned to eternal fire, unless they are Catholics.

There is a world of difference in spirit between this decree and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc.

Of course, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also condemns torture used against those of different faiths, whereas by the time of the Council of Florence several popes had *commanded* that heretics be tortured and twice-convicted heretics be burned at the stake [look this up online at New Advent in the Catholic Encyclopedia article "inquisition"] -- but that is another matter on which the Catholic Church has changed its teaching....

Please note that my post on the Council of Florence and on torture/burning of heretics is not presented in spite against the Catholic Church. Far from it, some of my fondest memories are nights when I would get off work from the telephone company at midnight, drive to the local Catholic Church (which was unlocked), and pray before the Tabernacle.

I love so many things about the Catholic Church, know a lot about many popes and saints, and read papal encyclicals when I can.

But certain questions nag at me still. I'm just not convinced about the "full, immediate, episcopal" jurisdiction of the pope over the entire world, because I don't find that that was the practice until the 11th century. And I find it hard to make sense of the dogma of infallibility -- which up to a third of the bishops at Vatican I voted against in writing before they left Rome in protest, by the way -- when there seem to be changes of teaching on things like the salvation of non-Christians, torture and burning of heretics, slavery (many popes owned them), etc. [By the way, I know that everyone changed their teaching on slavery, not only Rome. But other Christian bodies don't claim the same kind of infallibility Rome does, so that's why I think it is an issue.]

Also, when I look at, say, the Assumption of Our Lady in 1950, I find it strange as to why this would be declared a *dogma* on pain of anathema and excommunication. Why? This is a fact of Our Lady's life -- and I personally take it to be true that after her death she was then resurrected -- but why should that have to do with our eternal salvation on pain of anathema? It makes sense to me that teachings regarding the Holy Trinity, Christ our Lord, etc. are dogmas because they deal with our relationship with God -- but a fact about Mary's life?

I know, I talk a lot. Sorry.

That was me.

Just a thought... there is a rather big difference between the little and big "c", is there not? The quote is accurate to the source in regards to lack of capitalization, so is it possible that the term "catholic" takes on the broader meaning? (or do I have the two reversed?)

You know folks,

I am not a Biblically trained scholar, ordained and to this point even unable to quote a whole lot of scripture needed in some circumstance. But I did make a very small point in a post discussing the CEC situation to "sthilary" which has provoked these comments. Seraph seems to have captured the relevance of my "7th day ..." comment. Interesting enough, just a very small point made in the longer commentary towards CEC.

Anyhow, there are other issues I've been faced with concerning becoming "Roman" and I do desire to sit with someone and discuss them. I have been trained in the healing ministry by two very gifted people, Francis & Judith McNutt and I am more than aware of their "gifts". In alcohol & drug recovery I was even called an "arrogant bastard" by a Catholic Priest, wearing a collar. To someone who at that point had not come back to Our Lord, I was schocked! Yet, it was a most revealing comment which continued to teach me for years. God Bless Fr George Coyan who said that 30 years ago! And I have also been Blessed in my life to know FR Joseph Martin, in whose small chapel in Havre DeGrace, Md, the Holy Spirit came into me after not being in church for almost 20 years. I can do Communion in the church with the best of them!!!

In my spiritual journey I met a Franciscan Monk who tought me to pray the Rosary, which I did for a time and in which I did indeed experience an awesome spirit of empathy for Mother Mary. However, in discussing that with an Episcopal priest friend with whom I've played in praise & worship groups and who also is Blessed with many gifts of the Spirit; replied, I don't pray to idols. That comment led to me look at the "Romans" who ardently pray in churches to statues of Mary, various Saints, etc.

I was advised in the CEC church I was studying the catechism in that we would look at the "path to Rome" and I continue to question if this is the path I am to be on? So again, I find it interesting that such a small comment in a multi-paragraph statement brought on this section... Thanks all


Roy

Let’s hit one at a time. I have waited, hoping someone beyond a BA would be able to succinctly answer you.
____________________________________________________________________

Always go to the source, right?

This is a Bull addressing Union with the Copts (Monophysites).

Here it is, in context: "First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God...It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatic, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5 (Session 11)

Ask yourself the following:

What was the understanding of "catholic church" by the writers of the Bull at the Council of Florence and why did they make a distinction in this decree, as is illustrated above, between "catholic church" and "holy Roman church"? Did you notice that the "It" is not the "catholic church" but the "Roman church" in the passage? The holy Roman church has always understood the Church was not just Roman. That is because Rome has ALWAYS understood "catholic church" means “of the whole” -north, south, east and west, not solely Roman, and Militant and Triumphant-not solely the folks at 00120 Via del Pellegrino Citta del Vaticano. Do you think that Catholics on Earth think that Catholics in Heaven are considered Roman? Dr. David Delaney, a Catholic Theologian, wrote me earlier this week correcting me, he said “I do not use the term ‘Roman Catholic’ because it is a term given to the Church by Protestants and Rome has rarely (if ever) referred to herself this way. This usage seems to suggest that it is simply another denomination among others, etc. Anyway, I thought I would share that with you.”

This statement you refer to is the equivalent to Jesus saying, “Unless you are born again, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” If you are born again, you are Catholic. THIS IS THE CATHOLIC POSITION. As you know, entrance into Heaven is contingent upon our joining the blood covenant family of God via faith-obedience and the Sacraments. (Jn 3:3 Acts 2:38 Mk 16:16,17) However, will there be pagans, Jews, schismatics and heretics who refuse to accept truth (Jesus) and not enter the Covenant (which makes them catholic)? Yes. I will suspect there will also be Roman "Catholics" and tongue-talking Pentecostals who will split Hell wide open as well. However the Church does not condemn anyone to Hell and never has. It can’t!

Another thing that folks should note is this: When the Fathers talk about Jews, they are NOT talking about the race or ethnicity necessarily. They are talking about the religion. To them, religious Judaism was a shadow of the substance. Christ, the substance, having come makes the religion-the shadow- null and obsolete. In our thinking we lump the race and religion together. They did not. One can be a Jew who does not practice Judaism and another can be a Jew, although a Gentile, has converted to Judaism. In essence, there are religious Jews and there are racial Jews. Do you really think the holy Roman church would condemn racial Jews since it was founded by the three most popular racial Jews ever- Jesus, Peter and Paul? I don't. Consider how many Popes have been physical Jews. (http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/05/26/news/world/popes0527.txt)

As they say in the Catholic Church, when we get into Kingdom, we will be surprised by two things:
1. Those who are there
2. Those who are not

Greek Father Alexander Schmemann said something to the effect, "I can tell you where the Church is but I can't tell you where it isn't!" This is the modern Roman position as it was at the Council of Florence 600 years ago.

Context and source!

Thank you Ken.

I'm interested by your response, sounds like an attractive attitude to me! But I'm not satisfied at your answer since the decree specifically mentions schismatics and heretics, both of which would have been baptized and born again. There is a clear distinction made between catholic and not, for it says, even if someone sheds their blood for Jesus they will still go to eternal fire unless they become a catholic by the end of their life.

BTW, I don't have the Latin in front of me and have seen it translated as either "catholic" or "Catholic". In the context of the 15th century, that was probably not a major point since Protestants didn't exist. But Florence was a reunion council to get the Western "catholic" and Eastern "orthodox" believers together again.

Also, yes, clearly this refers to Jews as the followers of Judaism, but my point is that this is true of Vatican II also, yet Florence sees Jews as damned unless they become Catholics, whereas VII sees them as saved even as Jews. What changed?

Who says schismatics and heretics would have had to once been baptized and born again?

Regardless, Hebrews 6 makes it clear that folks once born-again can return to their dead state again. The Fathers certainly agreed. (see also 2 Pet. 2:17)

You wrote, "There is a clear distinction made between catholic and not, for it says, even if someone sheds their blood for Jesus they will still go to eternal fire unless they become a catholic by the end of their life."

How does this make a distinction? It makes a clear distinction, as I illustrated, between "the holy Roman church" and "Catholic church". Please do not make it say something it doesn't.

In fact, St Paul said in 1 Cor. 13, "If I give my body to be burned but have not Love (God) it profits me nothing." Likewise, if I prophecy, cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, speak in tongues or walk on water but never enter the Covenant or break it, I blaspheme the Holy Spirit and will go to Hell. A person can go all their lives thinking they are catholic but will find out He never knew them. (Matt. 7:23)

You mention, "I don't have the Latin in front of me and have seen it translated as either 'catholic' or 'Catholic'. In the context of the 15th century, that was probably not a major point since Protestants didn't exist."

I am unsure of what the Latin has to do with this, but there is no such distinction between little "c" catholic and big "C" Catholic- this is a Protestant invention. There in only one Catholic church. We are either in it via faith/obedience and the Sacraments or we are not. However that does not mean we have to stay in, we can go to Hell if we want due to a little gift called "free will".

You asked, "Also, yes, clearly this refers to Jews as the followers of Judaism, but my point is that this is true of Vatican II also, yet Florence sees Jews as damned unless they become Catholics, whereas VII sees them as saved even as Jews. What changed?"

Nothing changed. It is the difference again between religious and racial Jews. He who hears the truth and rejects it will not enter the Kingdom. Who can ascend to the hill of the LOrd? He who has clean hands and a pure heart..for without holiness it is impossible to see God. Blessed are the pure in heart for THEY will see God. Only God can truely judge in us, Jew or Gentile, if this is so. Agree?

I don't think Vatican II is referring to Jews merely by race, for the other decreees of VII are addressed to Buddhists, Moslems, etc. as matters of religion, not of race.

But I don't have the time right now to look it up, will have to be later this weekend.

Please don't tell me I'm clutching at straws, better minds than you and I have discussed this issue seriously, including Francis Sullivan SJ.

Seraph.

Greetings again, brother! I await your answer to my questions. I am reading up on VII.

VR,
Ken

I have been rather busy and still am, but I will briefly respond to the thread. I promise I am not trying to ignore anybody.

Vatican II builds on the earlier definitions of salvation. If you look at other early Christian councils, the NT writings, the writings of Church Fathers, etc, you will see similar exclusive claims as that of Florence. It is not just a Catholic claim. The Gnostics, Judaizers, Montanists, Docetists, Sabellians, etc, were not simply viewed as other denominations; East, West, and in between all viewed these groups as unsaved! Back then there weren't denominations unified by "essentials"; there was just "inside the Church" and "outside the Church." Things got a little messier after East and West broke ties, but the same truth has basically held sway: Outside of the Church there is no salvation. As Americans heavily influenced by denominationalism and post-reformation concepts of the "invisible church," such a position seems unduly harsh. However, there is a way to look at these exclusive claims in light of God's mercy, without giving up the concept of a visible Church with objective truth. I think modern Catholics with Vatican II and Orthodox with their understandings of the Church as a mystery balance the two realities.

The definition of Florence says one must be "joined to the Catholic Church." What that means is certainly debatable. The Catholic Church holds that if one is saved, it is because of the grace dispensed through the visible Church, period. All the good works in the world can't save you without Christ, and since his Body is "the pillar and ground of Truth," it makes sense that in order to have the Truth, you must be connected to Christ's Body in some fashion. Willful heretics and schismatics will certainly have a hard time getting saved, because they have indeed rejected the Church and her Teachings. But what about those who are invincibly ignorant for a variety of reasons and have not willfully rejected the Church or her Teaching, or else who have rejected them, but have done so for a variety of wrong reasons (an improper understanding, having been abused by folks acting in Christ's name, etc)? Just as the Church grew in understanding from a less merciful position on reconciliation (one public confession after baptism and that's it) to a more pastoral one (private confession as many times as one needs to overcome sin), the Church has expanded upon the definition of Florence and has understood it in the most charitable way possible, without changing the content of it (you still must be joined to the Catholic Church in some way to be saved). Development is not a bad thing. Just as the doctrine of the Trinity became better understood over time (barely known in the OT, known in the Bible in a more economic, simple form, to its full flowering at Nicaea and Constantinople), Catholics see no problem with an expanding and maturing understanding of the faith over time that builds on the grace of past councils.

As for Jews, I would have to look at the Vatican II documents to see if they say Jews are automatically saved simply on account of their ethnicity. I hope this helps.

In Christ,
David

Forgive me for jumping in, perhaps I may help. The Council of Florence, or for that matter any council's decrees undergo a process of "Reception." Reception in the classical sense is the work of the Spirit in the communion, all the local churches. The first seven great councils acheived reception but it was a slow and partial process. An example in the seventh council of Nicaea II. Due to language misunderstanding the West did not "recieve" this council for a time, but came to accept it later.
Unlike the Eastern church the Roman church rejects the necessity of "reception" but considers it a sign that the council or a pope has taught definitively.
The language used in the Council of Florence regarding the salvation Jews and others outside the Church has not been fully "recieved by the Church." The language of Vatican II reflect a dynamic development (the living faith of the Church) which has not recieved the language of the Council of Florence regarding salvation. It is viewed by theologians as an accurate picture of the Church and its teaching at that time, but does not reflect the "maturing" of the faith in the Church at this time. Thus, there is the Spirit who constantly instructs the Church.
Several examples of "reception," or better Non-reception. John the XXIII wrote Veterum sapientia (1962) which imposed Latin as the vehicle of theological instruction. Having graduated from a Catholic seminary I was not required to even learn Latin. This was simply not recieved by the Church.
The 1985 Synod of Bishops was an examination of how Vatican II had been recieved in its four Constitutions.
All this is to say, the language used in the Council of Florence and the terms used must be understood in their historical context and reflect the church at that time.
Sorry for the intrusion, Blessings

Guest,
Thanks for the excellent comments. Intrude more often and make yourself at home :)

David

Seraph,

Are these the main issues you'd like to address? Is there any clarification of the questions needed?

1. The Council of Florence- salvation of non-Christians and the torture/burning of heretics.
2. The "full, immediate, episcopal" jurisdiction of the pope over the entire world, because you do not find that that was the practice until the 11th century.
3. The dogma of infallibility -- which up to a third of the bishops at Vatican I voted against it in writing before they left Rome in protest.
4. Slavery condoned by the Church at Rome and slaves owned by many popes.
Other Christian bodies don't claim the same kind of infallibility Rome does, so that's why you think it is an issue.
5. The Dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady. I find it strange as to why this would be declared a *dogma* on pain of anathema and excommunication. Why? You wrote very eloquently, "This is a fact of Our Lady's life -- and I personally take it to be true that after her death she was then resurrected -- but why should that have to do with our eternal salvation on pain of anathema? It makes sense to me that teachings regarding the Holy Trinity, Christ our Lord, etc. are dogmas because they deal with our relationship with God -- but a fact about Mary's life?"

Just a note of clarification, if I read it correctly, the bishops at the Council did not say they will go to eternal fire unless they become a catholic by the end of their life. It stated they must persevere in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

Seraph,
What does this mean to you?

Folks,

This is what disturbs me the abolute most about the dialogue which says, Unless I become "Roman". I will not be admitted to Heaven. In my teachings I have constantly been advised to avoid "legalisms".

Here's the deal according to what I've been taught. If I "repent" and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour, I am "reborn" and will know the Grace of being accepted into Heaven.

That, according to what I've been taught, is "GOSPEL", anything else is man made law, which is "legalism" and which is not to be accepted as the WORD.

So while the Roman doctine may say what it does, aligning us to the word of St Peter; what about those of us who accept the writings of St Paul who says if we repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, we are saved!??.

Are we not then "nitpicking" over a particular faith and segregating The Word to suit the purposes of a particular sect? If that is so,.. who among us is ready and responsible to say I am not acceptable to God based on what you (denomination?) tell me I am supposed to accept as The GOSPEL of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ???

In most Love & prayer...

Roy

The Tsunami is Coming! Are You in The Ark?
Ken Follis

There was no Salvation outside the Ark of God. In Genesis 7, The Holy Spirit tells us, “Then the LORD said to Noah: ‘Go into the ark, you and your entire household, for you alone in this age have I found to be truly just. Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate;
Likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female. Thus you will keep their issue alive over all the earth. Seven days from now I will bring rain down on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and so I will wipe out from the surface of the earth every moving creature that I have made’…As soon as the seven days were over, the waters of the flood came upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month: it was on that day that all the fountains of the great abyss burst forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. For forty days and forty nights heavy rain poured down on the earth. On the precise day named, Noah and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of Noah's sons had entered the ark, together with every kind of wild beast, every kind of domestic animal, every kind of creeping thing of the earth, and every kind of bird. Pairs of all creatures in which there was the breath of life entered the ark with Noah. Those that entered were male and female, and of all species they came, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in. The flood continued upon the earth for forty days. As the waters increased, they lifted the ark, so that it rose above the earth. The swelling waters increased greatly, but the ark floated on the surface of the waters. Higher and higher above the earth raised the waters, until all the highest mountains everywhere were submerged, the crest rising fifteen cubits higher than the submerged mountains.
All creatures that stirred on earth perished: birds, cattle, wild animals, and all that swarmed on the earth, as well as all mankind. Everything on dry land with the faintest breath of life in its nostrils died out. The LORD wiped out every living thing on earth: man and cattle, the creeping things and the birds of the air; all were wiped out from the earth. Only Noah and those with him in the ark were left.”

I firmly believe some will be saved claiming they have the Bible and that Faith/ Repentance/Obedience (in that order) in it is all that is necessary to be saved. (John 3:16, 2 Tim. 3:16)

Faith. But where did they get this Bible? It was the Church that wrote and/or compiled the books that became the Bible. She, by the Authority given her, gave us the Table of Contents. Some will be saved only having read and believed but it was the Church that gave the book that is able "to make you wise unto salvation." (2 Tim. 3:15)

Baptism. Others claim rightfully that it is Trinitarian formulated Water/ Spirit Baptism with Faith/Repentance/ Obedience commanded by the Bible, as mentioned in the above statement, that produces salvation. (Acts 2:38, Mark 16) It is good to note, one cannot baptize himself apart from the Catholic Church for it takes one Catholic person to baptize another.

But where does one get the Bible and Baptism from?

It is the Catholic Church, meeting in Councils, who AFFIRMED for us the Bible (AD 382) and a Trinitarian Baptism (AD 325). We should not bite the hand that feeds us. Can any student of history object?

Therefore, outside the Mother Catholic Church, there is no Salvation (access to the Father). For example, St Cyprian declared, “He, who has God as his Father, must have the Church as his Mother.” If by Mother, we understand it to mean the earthly visible Church headquartered at Rome then this, of course, is the IDEAL and ultimate. There are some who have the Father but do not have the Mother but will return ultimately to her in Heaven. (E.g. the Nestorians, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants) I would suspect there are some who may have the Mother without the Father. These may be the ones who will be cast out at the Bema Judgment claiming they know the Lord who doesn’t know them. (Matt.7)

Now there are six other Sacraments beside Baptism and seven missing books in the Protestant Bible and a few extra in the Eastern Orthodox Bible? Can Christians who do not have the seven other books or who, like the Eastern Church, have a few extra and still be saved? Yes, if it is mixed with faith. (Heb. 4:2) The incomplete or misconstrued Canon of Scripture still contains all that is necessary to make one wise for salvation. (2 Tim. 3:15)

Can one be saved without the six other Sacraments? This is a more debatable question. Of course one can not be married and still be saved. Likewise, one can be saved without receiving holy orders. Also one does not have to be anointed with Holy Unction in order to go to Heaven.

But what about the remaining four Sacraments:

• Baptism
• Confirmation
• Eucharist
• Reconciliation

These four questions are the most pertinent for Protestants:

1. If I never get baptized will I be saved?
2. Will I be saved if I do not receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Roman church?
3. If I do not receive a valid Eucharist in either the Roman or Greek churches, will I have eternal life?
4. If I never receive Absolution nor make penance for my mortal sin will I die spiritually?

Again, only God knows who will be saved at the Bema Judgment. Allow me to illustrate, what I have come to understand.

The Holy Spirit has illustrated Salvation/ Regeneration with three natural everyday matters:

1. Gardening (Husbandry): Because you have had a new birth, not from the seed of man, but from eternal seed, through the word of a living and unchanging God. (1 Pet.1:23)
2. Marriage (Husbandry) and Birthing: “Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as he loves himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.” (Ephesians 5:21-33)
3. Birthing: The Holy Spirit further states, “There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’. Nicodemus said unto him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ‘you must be born again.’” (John 3:1-7)

Gardening is cyclical. Fruit bears seeds that die, are then planted, watered, illuminated and germinated. After an extended period of time it will sprout, and then reproduce more fruit and more seeds. The process usually repeats itself. Likewise, Marriage and Birthing are cyclical. The husband and wife, in dying to themselves, become blood covenanted in the act of sacramental sexual union called Marriage. (Marriage can accurately be called ‘Husbandry’.) The husband plants the seed in the garden, which is the womb-man (woman). The woman waters it with her amniotic fluid. Life is conceived after being illuminated and animated by the Spirit of God. This person (human being) is germinated and generated at this point. After an extended period of time the person is born (sprouts). They usually grow up, get married, and have children who repeat the process.

Now apply this to our relationship with God which produces Salvation:

Jesus is the seed that died and was planted. (Jesus said of Himself, “In most solemn truth I tell you that unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains what it was -- a single grain; but that if it dies, it yields a rich harvest.” John 12:24) In doing so, He created many other grains of wheat- plants, fruit and seed of God, which are Christians. (**See Paul Thigpen’s statement below)

Jesus is the Word of God. (John 1) He is also the Sower of the Seed as are all who preach the Gospel. (Mark 4)"Hear this! A sower went out to sow and as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky ground where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep. When the sun rose, it was scorched and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it and it produced no grain. Some seed fell on rich soil and produced fruit. It came up and grew and yielded thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold." Jesus said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables? The sower sows the word. These are the ones on the path where the word is sown. As soon as they hear, Satan comes at once and takes away the word sown in them. These are the ones sown on rocky ground who, when they hear the word, receive it at once with joy. But they have no root; they last only for a time. Then when tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. Those sown among thorns are another sort. They are the people, who hear the word, but worldly anxiety, the lure of riches, and the craving for other things intrude and choke the word, and it bears no fruit. But those sown on rich soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit thirty and sixty and a hundredfold."
“… so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:14-18) Jesus later said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24)

Marriage and the Church: Jesus is the Second and Last Adam. (1Cor. 15) “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep (Crucifixion) to fall on the man (Jesus), and he slept (three days), and He took one from his sides (after being pierced blood and water flowed), and closed up the flesh underneath. And the Lord God fashioned the side taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. And the man (Jesus) said, ‘This (the Catholic Church), at last, is bone from my bones, flesh from my flesh. She was called woman because she has been taken out of man. Therefore, a husband will leave his father and mother and will join to his wife, and they will become as one flesh.’” (Gen. 2:21-24)

1. The Apostle is sent (Apostle meaning “sent one). Jesus is the Sower of the Seed and Apostle of our Faith (Mark 4; Heb 3:1)
2. The Word of God is preached in words and deeds (Holy Tradition)
3. The Church believes and repent
a. Some heard and refused to believe. (Luke 4:28.29)
b. Some believed and remained silent followers such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (John 3:3, 19:38,39)
c. Others believed for a short while but denied it. (John 6:66)
d. One believed for a long while but eventually betrayed. (Judas)
e. Many followed Jesus and eventually led others to (Acts 1, 2)
4. Jesus institutes the Eucharist
5. Jesus was crucified, pierced and died. Blood and water flows from His side and blood alone from six other places. Eve was made from Adams side and so was the Bride of Christ.
6. Jesus is buried, resurrected and He ascended.
7. The Husband (Jesus) marries the Bride (Church) and they are ONE on the Day of Pentecost.

Now relates this to each of us as Christians. We see the cycle continue:

1. The Apostle is sent (Apostle meaning “sent one) to the Garden as the Second and Last Adam, our Groom and Husband. The twelve obeyed Christ, the Groomer of the Garden, in Matt.28:19, 20 and went into the garden of the world. The Twelve Apostles are represented in the Bishops of today who stand in succession to them (Acts 1:16-22)
2. The Word of God is preached in words and deeds (Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition)
3. Each of us hears the word, some mix with faith while others do not believe and repent (Rom. 10:9-20)
a. Some of us hear and refuse to believe. Satan steals the Word before it can be planted.
b. Some of us believe and remain silent Christians but risk never confessing Christ before men. Some like Nicodemus and St Joseph of Arimathea will confess in the end. This is the unknown seed by the wayside that took root and later bore fruit.
c. Some of us may believe for a short while but eventually will deny Christ because we love the world and the things in it. This is the seed fallen among fallow ground that the tribulation and trials of following Jesus cause folks to deny Him.
d. Some of us may believe for a long while but eventually betray. (Judas) This is seed that was planted in fertile soil but among thorns and later in life are choked out by temptation and reject Christ.
e. Many followed Jesus and eventually led others to (Acts 1, 2). This is the seed that fell on fertile ground.

Now compared to Marriage:

1. The Spirit woos us to Christ
2. We meet the Groom/ Husband, the Second and Last Adam.
3. The Church (Eve) is offered His hand in Marriage
a. Some hear and refuse to be married.
b. Some seek to be a secret spouse.
c. Others marry for a short while but divorce.
d. One may marry for a long while but eventually divorce.
e. Many marry Jesus and have many children. We are married to Christ in Baptism and Confirmation. We make love to Christ in the Eucharist. If we sin against Him we are washed from our sins through the Sacrament of Eucharist and Reconciliation (John 1, 2) Christ communicates to His Bride through the Word of God in the Liturgy.

We can separate from or divorce Christ if we want!

The New Birth Process:

The sperm is planted and is mixed with the egg. (John 10:17). The woman waters it with her amniotic fluid. (Baptism) Life is conceived after being illuminated and animated by the Spirit of God. This person (human being) is germinated and generated at this point. After an extended period of time the person is born (Confirmation). They usually reproduce. But consider the following:
a. Some sperm is countered or doesn’t mix with the egg, like contraception.
b. Some are conceived but you don’t know for a few months- such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (John 3:3, 19:38,39)
c. Others are conceived for a short while but are miscarried. (John 6:66)
d. Some are conceived but are aborted. (Judas)
e. Many are born, confirmed believers and eventually make other babies. (Acts 1, 2)
f. Most after their Confirmation eat the Food from Heaven and the Medicine of Immortality (Eucharist) and are nourished while others never do or quit and die after birth.
g. Some may reject the Father through sin and refuse to be reconciled to Him in the Sacrament. They continue to eat His food but become sick or die after being born because the food was too much for them in their weak, unrepentant state.

We can die again just as we were born again. (Heb. 6; 2 Pet. 2:1-3 Jude 1:12)

So with this understanding, what happens when a person hears and doesn’t believe? They most likely will not be saved.

What happened is a person believes but doesn’t behave? They most likely will not be saved. (James 2, 1 John 3:9)

What happens to a person who believes but isn’t baptized? If they would have been baptized had they been afforded the opportunity, they will be saved. If it is because they simply quit going to church or quit believing it is possible they will go to hell. We entrust them to God’s care.

What happens to a person, who believes, is baptized but not confirmed? If they would have been confirmed had they been afforded the opportunity, they will be saved. If it is because they simply quit going to church or quit believing it is possible they will go to hell. We entrust them to God’s care.

What happens to a person, who believes, is baptized, is confirmed but doesn’t or stops receiving Christ in the Eucharist? If they would have received had they been afforded the opportunity, they will be saved. If it is because they simply quit going to church or quit believing, thereby rejecting the Sacrament- it is possible they will go to hell. We entrust them to God’s care.

What happens to a person, who believes, is baptized, is confirmed but doesn’t or stops receiving Christ in the Eucharist because they haven’t received the Sacrament of Reconciliation? They are in a grave state and they are in danger of going to hell. However if they would have been reconciled had they been afforded the opportunity, they will be saved.

Believing the Gospel and receiving the Sacraments are the only way to ensure you are in the Catholic Church. However, following the Magesterium of the Roman church is the only way to ensure you have the right Gospel and Sacraments, so why risk it? Some people ask “how far is too far from the Church”? If you are asking this you are already too far. The Roman church is the Ark Noah is building while all those around scoff and ask, “Where is the rain?” (Gen. 6,7)

*In the 6th century, the Patriarch Nestorius, a true Christian who misunderstood the Ever-Virgin Mary’s role, and his Patriarchate of Antioch were all excommunicated. The modern Assyrian Church of the East in Iraq and Turkey are the Nestorians. They agree doctrinally with the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches except perhaps on minor issues such as icons and the title of the Mother of Jesus. I suspect they have the Father.

**
Q: In the March/April 2000 issue of Envoy I found the "Live Long and Prosper" article about the "name it and claim it" mentality to be very informative. However, I run into a problem when Paul Thigpen, Ph.D., quotes Kenneth Copeland: "You don't have a God in you; you are one." "We are a class of gods!" I understand that this statement is erroneous and does not square with our Catholic faith. We do not have God by the tail merely because we have great faith in Him. The problem comes in here: How does a Catholic deny Copeland's statement yet defend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 460, where it quotes St. Athanasius: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God"?
I understand that the Church teaches that through God's grace and the Incarnation He imparts His divine nature to us so that we become true children of God. But isn't Athanasius stepping over the line when he says that we "become God"? How do we defend that statement to our Protestant brothers and sisters?
Laura Sobiech, via email

A: Paul Thigpen responds: Your insightful question presses us to understand a critical difference between the Catholic Church's biblically rooted understanding of the glorious nature of salvation and the less-than-biblical doctrines on this subject often embraced by Protestants. The Catholic teaching, preached since the early centuries of the Church, is known as the doctrine of theosis or theopoiesis, a Greek word often translated "divinization" or "deification." It is affirmed at every Mass in the words of the priest: "Through the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled Himself to share in our humanity." Theosis holds a prominent place in Eastern Orthodox teaching as well.
St. Athanasius was the fourth-century author of the magnificent treatise On the Incarnation (from which your quote comes) and served the Church as the great champion of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed. He understood the nature of God and the implications of the Incarnation for humanity more profoundly than most of us. Yet even he wasn't the first to talk about theosis.

St. Athanasius merely echoed both the Scripture and Church fathers who came before him, using what was an undisputed doctrine, accepted even by the Arian heretics, as a way of arguing against their heresy. His language was later echoed by other Christian teachers, in particular the thirteenth-century master theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, as quoted in that same paragraph of the Catechism: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in His divinity, assumed our nature, so that He, made man, might make men gods."

This is, after all, the teaching of Scripture. When Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be divine, He answered by quoting the Old Testament: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If He called them gods to whom the word of God came (and Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" (John 10:34-36). Clearly, Jesus is here affirming the earlier scriptural declaration that, rightly understood, at least some human beings can indeed truly be called "gods."

Still, that's a puzzling statement, so St. Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, helped illuminate Our Lord's startling declaration when he wrote: "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence, by which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-4, emphasis added).

We become "gods," he explains, because we actually become partakers in the divine nature. And this is possible because in Christ, the nature of God Himself has been joined to the nature of humanity, and the resulting redeemed human nature, which is "in Christ," now has new possibilities. As the ancient theologians put it: What God is by His nature, we can become by grace.

What exactly are those "precious promises" that reveal what it means to partake in God's own nature? Look at the divine attributes, and you'll find that the redeemed (the saints) have been promised such attributes as a part of their ultimate perfection in Christ: Divine knowledge. "For our knowledge is imperfect . . . but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood" (1 Cor. 13:9-12).

Divine glory. "We are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him" (Rom. 8:16-17). "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor. 3:18). "So I exhort the elders among you … as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed" (1 Pet. 5:1).

Divine authority. "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him" (2 Tim. 2:12). "For the Lord God will be their light, and they shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 22:5).
Divine power. "He who conquers and who keeps My works until the end, I will give him power over the nations, and he shall rule them … even as I myself have received power from My Father" (Rev. 2:26-27).

Divine holiness. "He disciplines us for our good, that we might share in His holiness. … Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:10, 14). "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). "But you have come … to the spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb. 12:22, 23).

In short, says St. Paul, we are to be "filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:19). Or as St. John sums it all up for us: "Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He appears we shall be like him, for we shall see Him as He is" (1 John 3:2).
This is what is traditionally called the Beatific Vision, the vision of perfect blessedness. When we are finally perfected in heaven, we will at last see God face to face, and we will be like the One we behold - because we will share in His divine nature.

This insight into the glorious destiny that awaits the redeemed also helps us understand the Church's teaching about the Blessed Virgin Mary and the other saints. If we begin to appreciate what we are to become in Christ once we're perfected as saints, it's easy to accept that Mary and the other saints in heaven have the knowledge, power, authority, glory, and holiness to help us in miraculous ways. They share in God's own nature!

How does this doctrine differ from that of ancient Gnostics and contemporary Mormons and New Agers? First, these other groups claim that we are all "gods" (or a "part" of God) by nature. Salvation is thus simply a matter of realizing who we already are.

On the contrary, the Church insists instead that we are not divine by nature; we are by nature sinful creatures separated from God and headed for eternal misery apart from Him. Nevertheless, the Incarnation has given us - beyond our wildest dreams - the opportunity to become "gods" if we unite ourselves with Christ, and come to take part, through Him, in the very nature of God. It's a possibility open to us only through God's grace.

Second, Catholic teaching differs from these others in that it doesn't claim (as Eastern religions often do) that the saints are somehow "absorbed" into God so that they lose their identity, like a drop of water mingled with the ocean. Perhaps St. Athanasius' wording as translated here ("that we might become God") disturbs some Christians because it sounds as if it tends in this direction. But we need only read the rest of his writings to assure ourselves that in his thinking, to "become God" does not mean an absorption by Him with a resulting loss of identity, but rather a sharing of His nature as promised in the Scripture. The Greek term in St. Athanasius' statement (theopoiethomen) could just as well be translated "we might become gods," which is more in keeping with his other statements of the doctrine and with the biblical language cited above from the Psalms and the Gospel.

Dear Ken and David,

My volume of Vatican II documents is not accessible to me right now, but I think the document I was referring to was Lumen Gentium.

David, what you say about "being joined" is very helpful. I *desperately* would like to know what the Latin text of Florence is in this Decree for the Copts/Jacobites, because in earlier translations I have seen this rendered as "enter", or "join", not "be joined to"--and that is a world of difference!

If it does mean, "must be joined to", then I admit my question has been answered, for Pius XII in one of his encyclicals speaks of those who are "ordered to" the Church even by a sort of unconscious wish or desire. In that case, I would presume "ordered to" and "joined to" are synonymous, and that such joining or ordering would not have to take place by the Sacrament of Baptism or by conversion.

English translations, alas, leave much to be desired!

Do either of you have access by some means to the original text of the Decree for the Copts/Jacobites in Florence session eleven?

Blessings and joy my brothers.

Oh, and Ken, yes, those other four items are my sticking points.

To those I should probably add I am disturbed that the very first papal decretals deal with--priestly celibacy!

Married priests were ordered to stop sleeping with their wives--in fact, Siricius even left his wife so he could become pope.

I know this is considered by RCs to be "discipline, not dogma", and I suppose it is, but it still seems unwise and sad to me, forcing married priests to remain separate from their wives, and now admitting only unmarried men.

The reason it troubles me is that St. Paul thought it was his "right" to take a wife with him on his apostolic journeys, as did Peter and the Brethren of the Lord.

If it was his "right", then how did the Roman Church so easily move to denying this "right"?

If St. Paul could get so troubled over circumcision, might he get worked up over this issue also?

Meanwhile, the Council in Trullo confirmed the position of the Church in the East, that married men could become priests. Not to mention various bishops (like St. Hilary) who were married men in the first centuries.

Anyway, what does Paul mean by saying this is his "right"? And how did his "right" become a "wrong"?

Seraph:
The Latin for the phrase "are joined to" from the decree for the Copts at the General Council of Florence is the word "aggregati." This is the word from which the English word "aggregate" is derived. To parse the word in the Latin places it in the Imperative Mood. I confirmed this meaning with a former RC priest/liturigist and Latin scholar friend of mine. Sorry Greek is my language of personal study not Latin. Anyhow the Imperative Mood is the same in Latin or Greek. It expresses action which is to be realized by the excercise of the will of one person upon that of another. He (my friend translated this as "you (all) (this is in the plural) must be joined to the flock."
David Z. has correctly stated that the church now understands grace is not restricted to those only (in, fully communicated members) of the Roman church. A theological distinction is made between those who are in relationship with the Church through common baptism and profession of faith and those who are in full communion with the church. All baptised creedal christians are in varying degrees of "relationship" to the church, they are "seperated brethren." The Jews are also to be in relationship with the church. Vatican II went to great lengths in seeking to open dialogue with all faiths, but espcially the Jews. However the relationship that is established with non-christian faiths is to provide as source of hope. Those non-christian faiths hope lie in the gospel that the church proclaims. I wrote an earlier post on the church's teaching on "reception." What the church "has not recieved" is the exclusion of other christians from a relationship with the church and non-christian faiths are to be brought into relationship so that by the church's witness that may come to knowldge of the gospel and Jesus Christ.
Florence and the councils of the Middle Ages did not understand this, the language is compulsory. Vatican II still procalims Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation and the Catholic church as as the ture church. But now the church recognizes other christians as "saved" though their christain walk would easier if they had acess to the full repository of grace that is in the church. Hope this helps the discussion. Blessings

Dear Ken et al,

I still hope for more discussion on the dogmas of papal immediate and universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility and the assumption of Our Lady, torture and burning of heretics by papal command in the Medieval period, slavery, and mandatory priestly celibacy (whereas Paul considered it his "right" to have a wife).

Should I just check in occasionally, and/or will you eventually have threads on these topics?

Many thanks for your time. :)

Oh, also "Filioque", which was added unilaterally to the Creed in the West, first in Toledo, Spain in the sixth century, then by Charlemagne throughout his empire, then finally it was used at an emperor's coronation in Rome in 1014 -- all this even though Ephesus and Chalcedon strictly forbade the Creed to be altered, even though the Council of Constantinople IV in 880 forbade additions or subtractions to the Creed, and even though Leo III put silver plates at Peter's tomb with the original Creed (sans Filioque).

Filioque was simply added in by the West without any clear papal command, and certainly without consulting with their Eastern brothers.

I have trouble with that.

Seraph -
You might want to try this site for Latin translation. Great discussion -- most thought provoking! Marysixtyplus

http://www.translation-guide.com/free_onli...nglish&to=Latin

I'm baaaack.... okay folks, a couple more questions as I continue to explore. First a comment/question about "filioque". What is it? I went to the translation link supplied above and it came back as, "Godson, ward, foster child". So how does this relate to the liturgy, or service?

I am watching EWTN right now and Fr Arellano mentioned that Mary is the dispenser of Grace through Jesus Christ and that the two hearts, Jesus & Mary, were joined. I hear that the liturgy of the 2nd heart was approved in 1672, then that Pius XII approved the Liturgy of the Immaculate Heart. Sorry, I couldn't catch it all and write down, but can I find some guidance here?

The other night I was watching Fr Corapi and he was doing the catechism show when he spoke of women in the Bible. He spoke of the "triumph of woman" in Genisis, then repeated in Revelation. Does anyone know where I can go for this as well? I have a very dear friend who is getting beaten down in the family court system by her ex, an emissary of satan on this earth!,.. and his evil attorney. Her faith is waning and I would like to be able to provide Word to lift her up.

See Ken (F), I am still seeking. I have found I do enjoy Fr Corapi's other show, outside the catechism teaching, because he and I share a similar background, although his was on a much higher level (pun not intended!). But as I seek, I still find conflicting elements, but I'm still here. I need to find a church!!

God's Peace & Grace

Roy

"Filioque" is Latin for, "and the Son". In the Nicene Creed (or more properly Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), it is confessed that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father". Various churches in Western Europe, and eventually Rome, added on the term "Filioque" without consulting the Eastern bishops or churches. So among Roman Catholics and many Protestants, the creed now says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

The Orthodox say that is illegitimate since it was never approved by an ecumencial council of the whole Church. They also say it is simply incorrect, and throws off the entire understanding of the Trinity.

Interestingly, the Catholic Apostolic National Church (from the Brazilian Church and Bishop Mendez) does *not* use "and the Son" in the Creed.

Hope that adds just a little clarity to a muddy subject!

This is a small point but while we are on the topic, what is the proper pronunciation of "Filioque"? :huh: I have heard it pronounced feel-e-oh-key and feel-e-oak Thanks

MarySixtyPlus,

Your first attempt at pronunciation is closer. "Filioque" is made up of two Latin words, "Filio" which means "Son", and "que" which means "and".

It sounds something like Fih-lee-oh'-queh.

Thanks,
I come from a French backround and did not think about the "que" being Latin!
Mary

Check out http://examiningtheiccec.blogspot.com/

On the CEC Forum, I wrote, "I cast no one into the Lake of Fire except Satan". This was a proverbial response meaning I do not know anyone specific except him whose fate is sealed and that being to Gehenna. Certainly I am not a Universalist for I believe sadly that some will follow him into Gehenna. St Paul, St Peter and St John all have lists of the types who will follow him.