There are no shortage of florilegia/quote mines on the issue of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (“no salvation outside the Church”). Though the issue is not entirely without support from eastern fathers, it appears to be more of an emphasis among the western fathers who dealt with long term schisms among the Novationists and Donatists.
My small contribution to this subject is a short compilation of fathers who teach on the typology of the Ark of Noah being the Church and what that entails. Only one eastern father (Saint Firmilian) picks up on the idea and he almost certainly was reiterating what he had read in Saint Cyprian’s writings. From Cyprian, the western tradition appears to reiterate the idea of “no salvation outside the Church” whenever Noah’s Ark comes up. The other popular teachings on the subject revolve around baptism and the Church having both saved and unsaved (i.e. clean and unclean animals, two saved sons of Noah and one cursed one). Eastern treatments of Noah’s Ark (including Saints Ephraim, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Damascene) tend to be more literalistic, drawing only moral lessons from what they iterated to be a historical event. Saint Ambrose is similar to the eastern fathers in this regard, though I have not read On Noah in which to conclude this with absolute certainty.
Ironically, the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem (1672) in the minutes of the council ends up quoting approvingly a passage of Cyril Lukaris on the question with the intent of proving that Lukaris did not believe in Protestantism. If he did, the council appears to speculate, why would he exclude their salvation? And so, this mostly-western typological interpretation ultimately appears to attain a conciliar approval and application on the question of there being (as the doctrine is called) “no salvation outside the Church.”
This quote mine is not intended to definitively address the question of “no salvation outside the Church.” As follows are passages concerning the Ark of Noah, all of which can be easily verified on New Advent if their citations do not contain links to other sources:
And as the Ark of Noah was nothing else than the sacrament of the Church of Christ, which then, when all without were perishing, kept those only safe who were within the ark, we are manifestly instructed to look to the unity of the Church. Even as also the Apostle Peter laid down, saying, Thus also shall baptism in like manner make you safe; 1 Peter 3:21 showing that as they who were not in the ark with Noah not only were not purged and saved by water, but at once perished in that deluge; so now also, whoever are not in the Church with Christ will perish outside, unless they are converted by penitence to the only and saving lava of the Church. (Saint Firmilian quoted in Cyprian, Epistle 74:15)
He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. Matthew 12:30 He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. (Saint Cyprian, Treatise 1:6)
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! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. (Saint Jerome, Letter 15:2)
But I have the sacrament, you will say. You say the truth; the sacrament is divine; you have baptism, and that I confess. But what says the apostle? If I should know all mysteries, and have prophecy and all faith, so that I could remove mountains; in case you should say this, I believe; enough for me. But what says James? The devils believe and tremble. James 2:19 Faith is mighty, but without charity it profits nothing. The devils confessed Christ. Accordingly it was from believing, but not from loving, they said, What have we to do with You? Mark 1:24 They had faith, but not charity; hence they were devils. Boast not of faith; so far you are on a level with the devils. Say not to Christ, What have I to do with You? For Christ’s unity speaks to you. Come, learn peace, return to the bowels of the dove. You have been baptized without; have fruit, and you return to the ark. But do you say, Why do you seek us if we are bad men? That you may be good. The reason why we seek you is, because you are bad; for if you were not bad, we should have found you, and would not be seeking you. He who is good is already found; he who is bad is still sought after. Consequently, we are seeking you; return ye to the ark. But I have baptism already. Though I should know all mysteries, and have prophecy and all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing. Let me see fruit there; let me see the olive there, and you are called back to the ark. (Saint Augustine, Tractate on John 6:21-22)
Heretics doubtless, when they come back from their error, cannot appease the wrath of God towards them by a sacrifice offered by themselves, unless they are converted to the Catholic Church, which blessed Job designates…For it is she alone through whom God willingly accepts a sacrifice, she alone who intercedes with confidence for those who are in error. Whence also the Lord commanded concerning the sacrifice of the lamb, saying; In one house it shall be eaten, neither shall ye carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house. [Ex. 12, 46] For the lamb is eaten in one house, because the true Sacrifice of the Redeemer is immolated in the one Catholic Church. And the Divine law orders its flesh not to he carried forth abroad, because it forbids that which is holy to be given to dogs. [Matt. 7, 6] It is she alone in whom a good work is fruitfully carried on, whence they only who had laboured in the vineyard received the reward of a penny. [Matt. 20, 10] It is she alone who guards those who are placed within her by the strong bond of charity. Whence also the water of the deluge raised the ark indeed aloft, but destroyed all those whom it found out of the ark. It is she alone in whom we truly contemplate the heavenly mysteries. (Saint Gregory the Great, Moralia on Job, Book 35:12-13; cf Registrum Epistolarum, Book 11, Letter 46)
‘For the Ark was wide on the lower decks, and narrow on the higher decks.’ For also those inside the Church who continually run down a wide and spacious road may be called not humans but beasts. They are meant by the unclean animals, two by two. Yet ‘the men and birds are kept on the upper decks.’ They who are capable of reason are called men; the birds in this place are understood to be those who stay in contemplation of the faith. And just as ‘the eight souls’ and the beasts and the birds in the Ark relied on the one Ark to be saved, so it is in ‘the Church’. (Saint Beatus of Liébana, Catena on Rev 1:13)
And just as, after the ark was made all those creatures that were saved were brought into it, the flood came and and carried off all those that were outside of it, so when all people who have been predestined for eternal life have entered the Church, the end of the world will come, and all the people found outside the Church will perish. And in this sense, the Ark clearly signifies the Church, Noah signifies the Lord that builds the Church in his saints, and the flood signifies the end of the world or the Last Judgement. (Saint Bede, On Genesis, p. 173)
Noah was shown to be the saviour, not of all the race of men in general, but of his own household, all of whom were saved through him. In the same way Christ, too, is the Saviour of the race of men, not of all men in general, but of His own household, that is of the Church; not, however, of the disobedient. (Saint Gregory Palamas, Homily 57:9, p. 471 in Venamin’s translation)
In closing, the following from Cyril Lukaris is quoted by the Council of Jerusalem as proof he did not really write the confession ascribed to him. The second chapter of the confession is as follows:
We believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other author but the Holy Spirit. This we ought undoubtedly to believe, for it is written. We have a more sure word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to light shining in a dark place. We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority. (Source)
To prove the preceding is not so, Lukaris is quoted approvingly as follows, thereby cloaking the preceding typological interpretations with the conciliar approval of the Orthodox Church:
As none can sail across the sea without a boat, so thou canst not steer through this world and its billows, and escape them, without a boat, which is the Church of Christ. Many endeavour to sail across it [the sea]; such are the impious and all the heretics, who are not within the Church of God, but they are all drowned. When God made the Ark, all that were within escaped, while those that were without perished. The Church of God is this Ark. (The Synod of Jerusalem [1672], p. 25)
Orthodox Christian Theology 
So are all OT events a precursor to what to expect in the NT church until the end of times?
@ Cherian R. Yes, the Old Testament is full of types, meaning real objects or persons that also symbolize Christian truths.
As St Augustine says, the New Testament is hidden in the Old, while the Old becomes clear in the New.
Exegesis by the Fathers is full of typology, among my favorites being St Gregory the Great on Canticle of Canticles, and on the Books of Kings, and on Job, St Jerome on the Prophets, St Augustine’s Enarrations on Psalms, and Blessed Raban the Moor on the Pentateuch
The Catechism of the Catholic Church paras 846 – 848 states:
“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
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338
St. Anastasios of Sinai
Question 7
“Question If someone is an infidel, or a Jew, or a Samaritan, and performs many good works, does that person enter into
the kingdom of heaven?”
Answer
“As the Lord said to Nicodemus, Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, a person will not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Jn 3: 5), it is clear that such a one will not enter the kingdom. However that person does not lose his or her reward, but either receives it here , with easy living and riches and comfort and all the other deceits of this life (after the fashion of the one who heard, Remember that you in your life-time received your good things [Lk 16: 25]), or on the other hand in the future life has a big difference over someone who did no good works. For just as in the case of the just there are many mansions (Jn 14: 2) close to God, so in the case of sinners there are many different forms of punishment.”
However, the good thief on the cross did enter the Kingdom of Heaven, so God does not ask the impossible of us. According to the gifts that we have received we will be judged. If many gifts, more strictly. But those who had the opportunity – and God only is the judge of who has – to be “born of water and the Spirit” and rejects God’s gift, heaven is closed.
It’s important to note that the acts of the council were not signed by all Churches, but the Confession of Dositheus was, which would not make this statement dogmatic:
“As none can sail across the sea without a boat, so thou canst not steer through this world and its billows, and escape them, without a boat, which is the Church of Christ. Many endeavour to sail across it [the sea]; such are the impious and all the heretics, who are not within the Church of God, but they are all drowned. When God made the Ark, all that were within escaped, while those that were without perished. The Church of God is this Ark. (The Synod of Jerusalem [1672], p. 25)”
Not true see Constantinople 1721 and the council of Moscow in the same year.
My apologies, I got the year wrong:
From St. Justin Popovic’s Dogmatics:
The “Confession” of the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus, approved in 1672 by the Jerusalem Council and in 1723 sent to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on behalf of all Orthodox patriarchs as an example of an accurate statement of faith. Accepted by the Russian Holy Synod, it was subsequently (in 1838) published in Russian under the title “Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox-Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith.”
How does this remotely prove what you said? This makes no mention of the Acts of the council but only of the Confession of Dositheus being approved by the Russian Synod.
Furthermore, I have it on good faith from people who teach in seminaries that only decrees of councils are binding. Second of all, the statement you quoted to show that there is no salvation outside the Church is not referred to by the council as something that must be believed by all Orthodox Christians, it is merely used as a metric to show that Cyril Lukaris did not believe that the authority of the Bible is above that of the Church, as the second chapter of the Calvinist letter suggests.
“…but we have also a very large book in the handwriting of Cyril, in which are given the Homilies preached by him in Constantinople on the several Lord’d days and Feasts, maintaining the contraries of those suppostitious chapters ; from which we have set forth in the present work certain extracts to prove the truth of what we say.” (Acts of the Council of Jerusalem 1672, page 19-20).
The council even provides the reason why they discuss these quotes, and it is explicitly not to make a dogmatic statement but rather to show that Cyril wasn’t a Calvinist. I have emailed some faculty members of SVOTS about this and they agreed with me, so I do not know how you are getting the notion that Orthodox must believe that those outside the Church cannot be saved, especially given that later saints completely ignored your allegedly dogmatic pronouncement and stated that the heterodox could be saved: St. Philaret of Moscow, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Sophrony of Essex, Fr. Dimitru Staniloae etc.
Something being ‘an Orthodox belief’ does not mean it is ‘the Orthodox belief’. Just because a quote from one of Cyril’s sermons was used to show that he didn’t hold to a certain heretical belief does not mean that the same quote must be accepted by all Orthodox, rather, it just shows he didn’t believe that Scripture was a higher authority than the Church.
“I have it on good faith from people who teach in seminaries that only decrees of councils are binding.”
Send the following to Saint Vlad’s:
In what the dissenters [Barlaamites] said, they were not only continuing to fight against the saints individually, but already were attempting to overthrow and dissolve the holy sixth ecumenical council itself. That council had no other purpose; its whole subject concerned the two natural wills and the two natural energies in our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of this it was necessary to bring in the Acts of the council and to read them, and from these to proclaim the true faith; so they were set out in the midst. But as soon as they were brought forth the dissenters at once cried out, “Not the Acts of the council, but read the definition only.” But while the divine synod was uncertain what this outcry meant, and why they rejected and did not accept the Acts, those men still did not depart in any degree from the same futile evil opinion and their twisted attitude, not at all accepting the reading of the Acts…At this, by the glorious command of our most clement emperor, a passage was read from the Synodikon which is customarily read on the ambo on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, which word for word is this: “On those who reject the words of the holy fathers, which were expressed at the confirmation of the correct doctrine of the Church of God, of Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose, Amphilochius who spoke God’s words, Leo the most holy bishop of the elder Rome, and the rest, and in addition on those who did not embrace the Acts of the ecumenical councils, the fourth, that is, and the sixth, anathema… (par 12) (Constantinople 1351, par 12)
https://maximologia.org/2020/05/17/the-synod-of-constantinople-1351/
It’s a shame people have to get this stuff from laymen with blogs and many in seminaries have not even read this. Next they will cry that COnstantinople 1351 is not Pan-Orthodox, despite it codifying Palamism. Then I’d simply point you to Constantinople II and III which likewise work upon the same mindset. But if you are not convinced from the preceding, why continue to send more and more from the holy councils?
What you sent actually proves my point, as it makes no mention of the Acts of the council being approved by the Russian Synod, and, furthermore, only mentions the Confession (the decrees of the council) as being dogmatically approved by the Church. Please show me where the Acts were accepted as a dogmatic definition by the entire Church
This is similar to Papist arguments that quibble “where does it say every jot and tittle of the sentence of the 5th council was accepted by the Pope?” We literally have the year the Russian Holy Synod accepted the confession and the year where they translated it. We don’t need a coronation ceremony for its minutes, that’s not how the reception of councils was ever done, in fact most of the time synods were only send the decrees and canons of councils to begin with. The minutes merely offer context behind the teaching as found in the decree.
It’s obvious you reject what the council teaches and so you’re trying to slice and dice this stuff, but in the end sum, you have to decide whether you are out to have your own theology like a Protestant or whether you are going to accept the consistent witness of countless fathers and the obvious view of this council.
Who says I reject the council? I accept the confession of Dositheus, but I do not believe that Orthodox Christians are dogmatically bound to believe there is no salvation outside the Church, as you said, since it is pretty clear that that individual quote from Cyril Lukaris was not intended as a dogmatically binding statement
If it were, it would have been included in the decisions of the Council. You appear to agree with me, as you say “The minutes merely offer context behind the teaching as found in the decree.”, confining the actual teaching to the decree itself.
I also disagree that it is ‘obvious’ that the entire council held to the same view as Cyril. Again, they used his quote to show he didn’t believe the authority of the Bible was superior to that of the Church. How does that equal conciliar acceptance of his opinion? Furthermore, if your theory is correct, and even quoted materials from councils are dogmatic, Pope Hadrian II’s letter read at Nicaea 2 would also be dogma:
“For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc.”
Do you believe this, because the historical record suggests it to be untrue
The above is only in the Latin, the authentic minutes, with no chance it was received in the council. See https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/10/08/pope-adrians-greek-and-latin-letters-in-nicea-ii-je-2448-and-je-2449/
Furthermore, how do you plan to ‘harmonize’ the quotes of modern saints who have said there is salvation outside the Church (St. Philaret of Moscow, St. Sophrony of Essex, St. Theophan the Recluse, Fr. Dimitru Staniloae) with the alleged dogmatic proclamation of this council? Is the Holy Spirit divisive?
Easy. By pointing out you are wrong. For one, it was Filaret of NY, not St Filaret of Moscow, that everyone keeps quoting. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLgMbr8cv0g
You keep changing goal posts. First you argued the Russian synod did not receive the council. Then you changed the goal posts that sure they received the council but not the minutes. Then (being that’s not how conciliar reception works) you argue minutes carry no authority, despite this is not what the Church has historically confessed either.
Quoting Decree 10 of Jerusalem 1672:
That the dignity of the Bishop is so necessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of. For he, as a successor of the Apostles, having received in continued succession by the imposition of hands and the invocation of the All-holy Spirit the grace that is given him of the Lord of binding and loosing, is a living image of God upon the earth, and by a most ample participation of the operation of the Holy Spirit, who is the chief functionary, is a fountain of all the Mysteries [Sacraments] of the Catholic Church, through which we obtain salvation.
Decree 10 obviously states that those without bishops are not even Christians, because bishops are needed for sacramental grace–which is necessary for salvation.
Decree 18 makes clear that these sacraments, such as the Eucharist, are only valid amongst Orthodox Bishops and Priests:
[T]his Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church.
To the preceding, the only exception is baptism (Decree 15).
Instead of trying to “convince” you, if you can be honest and admit 1. there is something to the conciliar minutes having authority due to Constantinople (1351), 2. Jerusalem 1672 has attained to Pan-Orthodox reception, and 3. the council’s minutes passing comments on “no salvation outside the Church” appear born out in its own decrees; then I think we can end the conversation there.
Okay, I have watched your video and I can agree with your position on No Salvation Outside the Church here, but I am very troubled by this teaching. What can I tell my non-Orthodox friends and loved ones when asked about it? Should I give them a pastoral type of answer like in the video? Thank you for articulating this teaching even if many such as myself cannot bear it.
I appreciate the charitable demeanor. In short, the “pastoral” answer is usually given to the Orthodox, not those outside the Church. To those in sin, we show love, pray for their repentance, and through subtle or explicit means (whatever is effective) try to encourage their repentance. We also take heed lest we fall, as they may go to heaven and not us. There are plenty of Orthodox in Hell.
BTW, supposedly an article by Krivoshein shows that the actual Confession of Dositheus was potentially part of a Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople held the same year 1672, , including archimandrite Joasaph, acting as legate for the Russians. And so, 1723 would have been a reiteration of likely what was already accepted by Russia.
What do you mean in your video when you say “Charity permits salvation but the intent to be divorced from the Orthodox Church is a rejection of grace?”
In short, the desire to be Orthodox effectively makes one Orthodox when things outside our control prevent us (i.e. geography, for example). See Augustine’s answer in Book 1 Against the Donatists.
The antithesis is purposely rejecting Orthodoxy or not knowing of it whatsoever, each with their proportionate level of condemnation (the latter light, the former extreme).
Could being born in a different faith tradition classify as something outside someone’s control that God may overlook? I know Protestants who are unquestionably better Christians than I will ever be.
The following response of Fr. Seraphim Rose seems to be good: “Orthodoxy is the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind, and therefore we should guard with our life the purity of its teaching and our own faithfulness to it. In the Orthodox Church alone is grace given through the sacraments (most other churches don’t even claim to have sacraments in any serious sense). The Orthodox Church alone is the Body of Christ, and if salvation is difficult enough within the Orthodox Church, how much more difficult must it be outside the Church!
However, it is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church—that is up to Him, not us. But when He does this, it is outside the normal way that He established for salvation—which is in the Church, as a part of the Body of Christ. I myself can accept the experience of Protestants being ‘born again’ in Christ; I have met people who have changed their lives entirely through meeting Christ, and I cannot deny their experience just because they are not Orthodox. I call these people “subjective” or “beginning” Christians. But until they are united to the Orthodox Church they cannot have the fullness of Christianity, they cannot be objectively Christian as belonging to the Body of Christ and receiving the grace of the sacraments.”
Do you think this is a good thing to send Protestants?
It is more intended for Orthodox, but I’m just some guy with a blog. I’d say send whatever that improves the virtue of whomever you are speaking with.
I’m not sure where you can find it, but you might find this book interesting. It does a survey of hagiographies that describe the salvation of some of the unbaptized in Church history. I’m not saying that it contradicts anything you’ve said, only that it shows that we can never truly judge individuals.
https://academic.oup.com/book/1885
Furthermore, is the number of people outside the Church who will be saved dogmatic? Do we know how many there will be?
What about the number who will, as you say, face centuries of damnation before being saved?
“Furthermore, is the number of people outside the Church who will be saved dogmatic? Do we know how many there will be?”
I’m wondering because in your video, Seraphim Rose says it is rare. This appears to speculate on the commonality of a mystery. Can we really say how much it will apply?
I can say with near certainty the number won’t be 3,542,981,102. How can anyone know? We speak of what is normal and what isn’t, what’s canon and what isn’t, what is expected and what is exceptional.
thank you for all of your help, but I still find it very hard to bear this teaching. In your youtube video, you mentioned ‘hopeful heretics’ who hope that the number will be higher than we expect. Is that a wrong thing to hope? I do not see a problem with that so long as one doesn’t insist upon it or teach it to others. Thanks for your patience. This is my last question.
I’d say to be true to your conscience and receptive to the Scriptures and saints. When there is a conflict, we affirm the Scriptures and saints and merely lament our own weakness.
I don’t trust my own interpretation of the saints or scriptures enough to know if my hope that a large number of people outside the Church will be saved is heretical. Do you think it is?
I think it’s wrong to take it upon yourself to guess, you leave it to God.
I need that hope to keep myself going. I have been weeping nonstop for the past day and a half. I have that guess because it’s what
the loving nature of God leads me to believe. As I said; its for me alone. I don’t plan on teaching it to others. Sometimes sensitive people just need hope
You should speak to your priest, this sounds psychological honestly
Hope is what keeps going. We can pray for those souls. The Catholic church constantly prays for those in spiritual need, and for all men to be saved through God’s mercy. Paul says that God wants all men to be saved. We can be sure that at the end of the day God’s judgement will deliver perfect justice, and we shall be amazed and overjoyed by his wisdom and love for mankind.
Jesus came to seek out the lost, and he will not give up unless they categorically reject him and persist in doing so.
It may not be heretical, but we just don’t know. Better left to God’s mercy as Craig says.
The Catholic church certainly holds to the view that non Catholics and non Christians can be saved, without trying to quantify this.
I’m not really interested in a Catholic perspective, and I wouldn’t trust a Catholic to tell me what is or isn’t heretical
It is absolutely psychological. I am mentally ill. I have been diagnosed with anxiety and I suspect that I also have depression as well. I have been told to avoid online theology pages and just stick to canonical websites from jurisdictions. Anyway, thanks for your help.
I suspected. DOes not make you a bad person. I will pray for you. Pray for me!
You might find this article on St. Varus interesting. He intercedes for the unbaptized and he was able to save the unbaptized relatives of St. Cleopatra through his prayers.
https://katolyki-krasnodara.ru/en/svyatoi-uar-zhitie-molitva-za-nekreshchennyh-i-v-inoverii-umershih-svyatomu-mucheniku.html
God bless you Josiah. I will pray for you. God loves you.
Again, it’s only a hope, and I will only tell other people about it with the caveat that it’s not doctrine or anything but only a personal belief.
It is, however, based upon this quote from St. Silouan the Athonite, which I think you interpreted wrongly in your video:
“Thus Christ’s love hopes to draw all men to Him, and so reaches out to the last hell. There may be some – whether many or few, we do not know – who will meet even this perfect love, this perfect sacrifice, with a rejection, even on the eternal level, and declare, ‘I want no part in it’.”.
It is difficult to interpret this quote as using hyperbole. A more logical explanation is that he is saying we cannot know the number of those who are ultimately saved, especially before the final judgement: “Thus Christ’s love hopes to draw all men to Him, and so reaches out to the last hell”.
This quote gives me hope that maybe a great many people will be damned for centuries but will eventually achieve salvation. I am not a universalist by any means, however. Do you think anything I have said here is wrong?
We also know that the prayers of the saints both in Heaven and on earth have a real affect on the dead, so perhaps many will have to be damned for some time before the prayers of saints allow them to attain salvation
For many or few who knows.
It’s worth noting that St. Paisios said that only about ten percent of the souls in hell have truly obstinate wills and cannot be helped through the prayers of the Church and prayer by individuals.
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/03/saint-paisios-on-praying-for-departed.html?m=1
So maybe we can have hope that many will be saved eventually, even if they have to be damned for an extraordinarily long time beforehand.
The church teaches that those in hell are there for all eternity. There is no coming back from hell. Purgatory is a different matter. All those in purgatory will go to heaven when their souls have been fully purified.
That is why we pray for those in purgatory, and not for those in hell.
I do not know whether he was just speaking about Orthodox or everyone here, but contextually it seems that he is speaking about all of the dead. I don’t know if this should be taken at face value, but it certainly gives a testament to the wide-reaching mercy of God and the power of our prayers for the dead
No it does not. Stop pushing Catholic theology on an Orthodox blog
I have been thinking lately about the following quote: “As none can sail across the sea without a boat, so thou canst not steer through this world and its billows, and escape them, without a boat, which is the Church of Christ. Many endeavour to sail across it [the sea]; such are the impious and all the heretics, who are not within the Church of God, but they are all drowned. When God made the Ark, all that were within escaped, while those that were without perished. The Church of God is this Ark.(The Synod of Jerusalem [1672], p. 25”
My question is: if this statement has conciliar approval (I’m not saying it doesn’t), wouldn’t it mean that everyone outside of the Church is invariably damned? I’m especially wondering about the statement “they are all drowned” referring to “heretics”. Does the word heretic here mean those who willingly and knowingly separate themselves from the Church, or just anyone that isn’t Orthodox? If the second interpretation is right, I don’t see how this conforms with statements from other saints who say that salvation outside the visible Church is possible, as the council seems to be definitively saying that everyone who is a heretic is drowned. This would contradict many hagiographies and Church traditions such as the account of Trajan or St. Perpetua and St. Varus etc.