How will judgement be different for a Catholic vs. an Orthodox?

[crossingtherubicon]

1.  Both Orthodox and Catholic have ample opportunity to crown Jesus Christ as King of their soul through acts of Faith, drawn by the Father through grace.
2.  Both Orthodox and Catholic will be presented with truth not currently apparent to them now, and they both will have to accept with humility to be saved and to keep Jesus Christ crowned King of their Soul.  Orthodox may have a mixture of doctrinal and personal and not currently doctrinal issues to accept in the moment.  Catholics may have a mixture of personal and not currently doctrinal issues to accept in the moment.
3.  Therefore the only disadvantage for an Orthodox would be to have some doctrinal issues that would have to be accepted in the moment.  But they would have every opportunity for salvation, as much as Catholic would have, but with a slight disadvantage.

If all truth has to be accepted before death no one would be saved, we will all have truths not currently apparent to us, either via blind spots or ignorance that we will have to accept in the moment, at personal judgement. 

Protestants on the other hand do not have ample opportunity to crown Jesus Christ as King of their soul, they have a ton of doctrinal issues they would have to accept in the moment, and then like Orthodox and Catholics would have personal truths and not currently doctrinal issues they would have to accept.  Tall order.

[crossingtherubicon]

not to mention the amount of personal truths a protestant would have to accept are so much bigger due to lack of confession.

it seems besides crowning Jesus Christ as King of our Soul, literally, the next step is limit the amount of truth you will need to accept in the moment at personal judgement, and work on the humilty needed to accept that truth that is not currently apparent.

[abc123]

Orthodox judgement will be the same as for any other non-Roman Catholic. They go directly to Hell. Even if they shed their blood for Christ they are lost since they did not submit to the Roman Pontiff.

See Unam Sanctam of 1302.

[crossingtherubicon]

Orthodox judgement will be the same as for any other non-Roman Catholic. They go directly to Hell. Even if they shed their blood for Christ they are lost since they did not submit to the Roman Pontiff.

See Unam Sanctam of 1302.

Well I am Romanian Catholic so I guess I am screwed too lol.
But in all seriousness, Unam Sanctum said 'every human creature' and Jesus Christ is the high priest so he can administer the sacraments without any limitations or restrictions, like he administered baptism to the Good Thief, although not explicitly.  Either Unam Sanctum is lying, or its the truth of the Office of the Bishop of Rome/Pope that needs to be accepted, because the Good Thief was saved and was not subject to the Roman Pontiff, he didnt even know about the Roman Pontiff and was probably ignorant of 99% of Catholic Truth we know today.

Now if Unam Sanctum said every human creature after Pentecost then you have a much better case.  But every human creature as a stand alone statement encompasses Old Testament folks who were saved.

[Xavier]

Orthodox judgement will be the same as for any other non-Roman Catholic. They go directly to Hell. Even if they shed their blood for Christ they are lost since they did not submit to the Roman Pontiff.

There are some distinctions that need to be made. First, is the mortal sin of schism, if knowingly and willfully committed. Second, is the possible inculpable ignorance of Christians born in a separated Church. Third, the duty to embrace the Truth as one becomes aware of it.

Let's put it together and apply it to this concrete case: now in the Photian Schism, what the world calls Greek Orthodoxy, the person who began it, was a false intruder opposing the legitimate Patriarch St. Ignatius, and anathematized in the Eighth Ecumenical Council, called Photius, in the Ninth Century. He was a schismatic properly so-called and was judged guilty of the mortal sin by the Church. The second such person, Caerularius in the Eleventh Century, had the Holy Eucharist Consecrated in Azyme Bread trampled upon, initiating 1054. This man committed a wicked crime so insanely blasphemous, having God trampled underfoot, there are no words to describe it.

On the other hand, consider a pious old Russian Orthodox lady living in Moscow. She probably has never heard of Photius and Caerularius, and hardly knows about the Catholic Church. She may reasonably be presumed to be invincibly ignorant. What has she to do? She must love Jesus above all things, believe firmly in His Divinity, the Holy Trinity etc, she will go and receive the Sacraments as best she knows how to, and if she perseveres in trying thus to do God's Will in her life, God will suitably enlighten her so as to be saved.

Such persons rather suffer loss of some addition benefits and graces that we have, because of the sins of Photius and Caerularius, than in any way being guilty of it. But there is a third category, and that consists of those who are able to come to know the Catholic Faith. Those who were born and raised in the Catholic Church, of course, then willfully lapsed into schism, need to return to be saved.

Serious study, deep prayer to God, love of His Will, and readiness to follow Him, are necessary. If a person studies Scripture and Tradition carefully, they will clearly point him to the Roman Church; for all Tradition testifies that Constantinople was subject to Rome. And Constantinople caused the schism, and over such meaningless trifles like Azyme Bread that more reasonable men were ashamed of it. Therefore, those who are able to come to know all this, once they become aware of it, are bound to visibly enter the Catholic Church.

[crossingtherubicon]

Orthodox judgement will be the same as for any other non-Roman Catholic. They go directly to Hell. Even if they shed their blood for Christ they are lost since they did not submit to the Roman Pontiff.

There are some distinctions that need to be made. First, is the mortal sin of schism, if knowingly and willfully committed. Second, is the possible inculpable ignorance of Christians born in a separated Church. Third, the duty to embrace the Truth as one becomes aware of it.

Let's put it together and apply it to this concrete case: now in the Photian Schism, what the world calls Greek Orthodoxy, the person who began it, was a false intruder opposing the legitimate Patriarch St. Ignatius, and anathematized in the Eighth Ecumenical Council, called Photius, in the Ninth Century. He was a schismatic properly so-called and was judged guilty of the mortal sin by the Church. The second such person, Caerularius in the Eleventh Century, had the Holy Eucharist Consecrated in Azyme Bread trampled upon, initiating 1054. This man committed a wicked crime so insanely blasphemous, having God trampled underfoot, there are no words to describe it.

On the other hand, consider a pious old Russian Orthodox lady living in Moscow. She probably has never heard of Photius and Caerularius, and hardly knows about the Catholic Church. She may reasonably be presumed to be invincibly ignorant. What has she to do? She must love Jesus above all things, believe firmly in His Divinity, the Holy Trinity etc, she will go and receive the Sacraments as best she knows how to, and if she perseveres in trying thus to do God's Will in her life, God will suitably enlighten her so as to be saved.

Such persons rather suffer loss of some addition benefits and graces that we have, because of the sins of Photius and Caerularius, than in any way being guilty of it. But there is a third category, and that consists of those who are able to come to know the Catholic Faith. Those who were born and raised in the Catholic Church, of course, then willfully lapsed into schism, need to return to be saved.

Serious study, deep prayer to God, love of His Will, and readiness to follow Him, are necessary. If a person studies Scripture and Tradition carefully, they will clearly point him to the Roman Church; for all Tradition testifies that Constantinople was subject to Rome. And Constantinople caused the schism, and over such meaningless trifles like Azyme Bread that more reasonable men were ashamed of it. Therefore, those who are able to come to know all this, once they become aware of it, are bound to visibly enter the Catholic Church.

very interesting points
regarding the lady in moscow though
are you saying if she does not enter visibly the church she will perish?
or could she die an orthodox and it be impossible for her to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, even if she died without being in a state of mortal sin?
And how to you reconcile that many say the Catholic Church is the same thing and equal to the Mystical Body of Christ, therefore
it is not membership in an Institution that brings salvation, it is membership in the Mystical Body of Christ that brings salvation,
and clearly not all Catholics are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which begs the question how exactly do you become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ?  I came to the conclusion that the only possible answer that aligns with the Gospels, the Good Thief conversion and Catholic Dogma is that you must literally have Jesus Christ as King of your Soul and to not reject any truth, and all truth may be reveled at the moment before your soul leaves your body, by Jesus Christ, which could also be when your personal judgement is. But clearly you have to know a truth to reject a truth.  And it makes it nearly impossible for a non-Catholic to be saved due to the vastness of Truth you will need to absorb in that moment.  And without Jesus Christ as King of your soul shall the Father really draw you to Jesus with grace?  Makes humility extremely important, and golly without the practice of confession can you really develop honest humility?

How was the Good Thief saved then?  When the bow went into the ribs, water spilled out, and by the wind or something else, hit the Good Thief, and Jesus silently baptized him.  Then through the prayers of Mary, the Good Thief had the inspiration to acknowledge the Kingdom of Heaven, and the King, and desire it, and ask Jesus to save him, and instantly Jesus Christ forgave him, and Jesus Christ became King of his soul, and Jesus literally entered his soul through baptism.  Then when he died, or in the moment before death, all Truth was presented to him, and the Father gave him the grace to humbly accept, and Jesus Christ was still King of his soul, and he entered most likely into Purgatory, to be purified, and then went into the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Xavier]

are you saying if she does not enter visibly the church she will perish?

No. Please see this 19th Century Catechism, which has Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat and approval from a Roman Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm#P1Lxii

Lesson XII.—No Salvation Outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

Q. Since the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Jesus Christ, can any one who dies outside of the Church be saved?

A. He cannot

...

Q. Did Jesus Christ assure us in other words of the damnation of those who die out of His Church?

A. He did in these words: "He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." Matt. xviii. 17.

...

Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.

Q. What do you mean by this?

A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

which begs the question how exactly do you become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ?

Pope Ven. Pius XII gives this answer: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.4"

And it makes it nearly impossible for a non-Catholic to be saved ...

It is very difficult, humanly speaking, yes; but not impossible, that is saying too much. For nothing is impossible to God. But this should show us how great the Grace and how much we should give thanks to God, for being children of the Catholic Church, fully united to Her, and on the path to Heaven. It should also give Priests especially and all of us great vigilance in trying to reconcile the separated to the Church, before their dreadful hour of death comes, and the time for turning back to God and the Church ceases. In the hour of death, most sanctions are removed by the Church out of Mercy; Priests and others should labor with all their strength to help non-Catholics make one good confession to the Priest to be saved. Supposing a person refuses to listen either to the Priest, or to Christ, he is lost. But if he is ready to listen to Christ, he can be saved, although it is very uncertain how.

How was the Good Thief saved then?

Some of the Fathers say, Baptism of Desire. Others, Baptism of Blood. Others, that he had already been baptized earlier, and thus made an act of faith and contrition, and thus was saved. All of us should be aware of making acts of contrition, especially in danger of death. St. Augustine later on in life seems to have speculated that the Water and Blood from Our Lord's Sacred Heart baptized the Good Thief. Salvation involves at least faith and love for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and readiness to believe and do all that he taught.

[Arvinger]

How was the Good Thief saved then?

Some of the Fathers say, Baptism of Desire. Others, Baptism of Blood. Others, that he had already been baptized earlier, and thus made an act of faith and contrition, and thus was saved. All of us should be aware of making acts of contrition, especially in danger of death. St. Augustine later on in life seems to have speculated that the Water and Blood from Our Lord's Sacred Heart baptized the Good Thief. Salvation involves at least faith and love for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and readiness to believe and do all that he taught.

The Good Thief died under Old Covenant, the New Covenant and foundation of the Church came into force later. Many groups, from Protestants to semi-Pelagians, uses the Good Thief example, but miss this simple fact.

[Gardener]

How was the Good Thief saved then?

Some of the Fathers say, Baptism of Desire. Others, Baptism of Blood. Others, that he had already been baptized earlier, and thus made an act of faith and contrition, and thus was saved. All of us should be aware of making acts of contrition, especially in danger of death. St. Augustine later on in life seems to have speculated that the Water and Blood from Our Lord's Sacred Heart baptized the Good Thief. Salvation involves at least faith and love for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and readiness to believe and do all that he taught.

The Good Thief died under Old Covenant, the New Covenant and foundation of the Church came into force later. Many groups, from Protestants to semi-Pelagians, uses the Good Thief example, but miss this simple fact.

The verse Feeneyites use was spoken under the old covenant but in a tense of present reality.

Are we to understand or believe the old covenant made it easier to be saved than the new one? Where's the good news in that?

[Michael Wilson]

How was the Good Thief saved then?

Some of the Fathers say, Baptism of Desire. Others, Baptism of Blood. Others, that he had already been baptized earlier, and thus made an act of faith and contrition, and thus was saved. All of us should be aware of making acts of contrition, especially in danger of death. St. Augustine later on in life seems to have speculated that the Water and Blood from Our Lord's Sacred Heart baptized the Good Thief. Salvation involves at least faith and love for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and readiness to believe and do all that he taught.

The Good Thief died under Old Covenant, the New Covenant and foundation of the Church came into force later. Many groups, from Protestants to semi-Pelagians, uses the Good Thief example, but miss this simple fact.

Arvinger,
The Good thief died after Our Lord did. When Our Lord died, the veil in the Temple was rent in two,  to signify the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New:
Cornelius A Lapide's ''Great Commentary":

Allegorically: To signify that the veil of legal ceremonies was thrown open, as fulfilled in Christ, so that henceforth both Jews and Gentiles should clearly know God, and Christ, and His Mysteries, which the Jews figuratively shadowed forth in so many ways; nay, more, that the service and Church of God should be transferred from Jerusalem, and the temple to the Gentiles and to Rome. So Origen, S. Jerome, S. Ambrose, and others. S. Leo says (Serm. xvii. de Pass.), "There was then so clear a change made from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to the One Victim, God Himself, that when our Lord gave up the ghost the veil was violently and suddenly rent asunder." And S. Jerome, "The veil of the temple was rent, and all the mysteries of the Law, which before were kept secret, were then laid open, and handed over to the Gentiles."

The Haydock Commentary states the same thing:

The veil of the temple was rent. As there were in the temple two parts of the sanctuary, so there were two veils, or partition walls. The first sanctuary, called the holy, was separated by a veil from that part of the temple called the court of the Israelites. Into this outward sanctuary, called the holy, entered every day the priests that were in office. The second interior sanctuary, called the holy of holies, was also separated from the outward sanctuary by an other veil. And into this holy of holies, no one was to enter except the high priest, and he but once a-year. Both these veils seem to have been rent at Christ's death: and by their being broken down, was signified first, that the ceremonies of the ancient law were to be abolished by the law of Christ; and also that heaven should be open to all.

[John Lamb]

My opinion on this question used to be very strict, very Augustinian. Not Feeneyite, but fairly close. As time goes on though, my opinion is becoming more and more liberal, lax, mild. Certainly this has been the trend over the last 500 years or so (at least in certain circles), and especially in the last 200 years.

We even have traditionalist icons like Lefebvre and Garrigou-Lagrange allowing the salvation of heretics, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, and pagans of good-will, for example.

Since the Council, it is the dominant view among theologians and bishops, etc. However, there are different versions of it, and the theologians are still working out the intricacies, so as not to contradict defined dogmas of the faith or to fall into religious indifferentism/pluralism.

Basically, we (of this opinion) acknowledge that there are many souls in the state of grace, who are outside the visible communion of the Church. How? Well that's the great debate. But obviously they receive supernatural grace and co-operate with it. The Holy Spirit enlightens them through their conscience, and moves them to accept the good to the extent that they know it, and to reject evil.

Though they may not have explicit knowledge of the Holy Name of Jesus, or the Church; yet, by accepting the Natural Law written on their hearts and striving to live in accordance with it, the grace of the Holy Spirit moving them in a hidden way, they are united in spirit to Christ the eternal Logos. All men who live in accordance with the eternal Law, with right Reason, are in union with Christ (c.f. St. Justin Martyr). All those who love their neighbour: love Christ, and are one with Him: "Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God." (1 Jn. 4:7).

It's my understanding that, in order to make a real act of charity, one needs to have the infused habit of charity dwelling in them; so if someone makes an act of charity, that's evidence that they are in a state of grace. But this applies to many who are outside visible communion in the Church.

Other primary characteristics of souls in a state of grace are humility in contentment, and patience in suffering. If a soul is charitable, humble in its joy, and patient in its suffering, then that soul is probably in a state of grace, alive in the Holy Spirit, and justified in God's sight by the merits of Christ in which they participate in a hidden manner:

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.

Whoever loves the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, loves Christ. By loving what is good and loving the commandments of the law written in their hearts, they enter into communion with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

How do we square this with Catholic doctrine?
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" -- this doctrine is there to define that the Catholic Church is the only religion through which divine grace enters the world. There is no "salvation" coming to us through any other religion. However, members of other religions participate in the sacraments, the faith, and the commandments of the Church to some degree or other, and receive grace thereby. They are inwardly/spiritually Catholic, though they are not so nominally (i.e. by name): "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

"Submission to the Roman pontiff . . ." -- this is against those who willingly & culpably separate themselves from papal authority despite having sufficient knowledge to understand that petrine office / apostolic succession, etc. Those guilty of schism and rending the unity of the Church.

"Heretics, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc., cannot be saved . . ." -- this is to define that these religions / errors are not salvific in and of themselves. Only the Catholic religion is positively salvific in and of itself. But many nominal heretics are not heretics in spirit (they do not culpably deny church doctrine), many schismatics are not schismatics in spirit (they do not culpably sever the unity of the Church), many Jews are not Jews in spirit (they do not trust in the works of the law to justify them), etc.

Sorry that this is all very slapdash. I understand that this is an extremely important issue and deserves the most deep, and careful study/analysis. However, I think that this view, while also being by the far the most favoured in contemporary theology, also opens up to an understanding of God and the Christian faith that is much more humane, i.e. that allows a far greater range for real human weakness and situations, without diminishing the role that Christ plays in human salvation. Obviously the questions it begs are (1) why do we need Catholic evangelism if many people are already in a state of grace, and (2) why do we need the Church's sacraments and disciplines if many people are getting along without them. These are profound questions, and I do think we (of this opinion) can give an adequate answer. Spare me just for the moment though. The gist is that the salvation of Catholics is far, far easier, since the sacraments are such a powerful means of salvation, and the Church's disciplines are so efficacious. Also, Catholics have a much, much easier time of advancing in holiness and reaching a high degree of glory in heaven, and of avoiding purgatory, than non-Catholics. Very few outside the visible Church are going to reach the rank of the greatest saints, because without the sacraments and explicit knowledge of the Crucified Saviour, there is hardly the means or the motivation to reach that highest degree of sanctity.

Anyhow, I invite people to read this book by a Fr. Walsh on the number of the saved, where he defends the milder view at length. It isn't this exact topic, but it's very related and lays out the general tone of our thinking:
https://archive.org/details/comparativesaved00walsuoft/page/n5

[Michael Wilson]

I also tend to hold the milder view; I think it is more in conformity with God's universal salvific will. Having said that, It is clear that Vatican II jumped over the chasm by ascribing to false religions efficacy in the role of salvation the famous statement in U.R. #3 That the spirit of Christ has not refused to use false churches as a means of salvation, and that these same false churches are not deprived of significance, as a means of salvation; cannot be true and at the same time the doctrine that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and the sole means of salvation, also be true.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

[John Lamb]

There are various images in the Gospel relating to the numbers/proportions of the saved & the damned. However, my favourite is Calvary: Christ, the Good Thief, the Bad Thief. I read this allegorically as representing the mystery of sin/redemption.

A third of humanity are other-Christs. They are good. Their merits outweigh their demerits/sins. They perform their duties, they bear their sufferings and humiliations, they maintain charity with their neighbour. A small minority of them imitate Christ to a heroic degree, and become glorious saints who merit the conversion/salvation of thousands of sinners. Nevertheless, all people of this category are co-workers / co-redeemers with Christ, and contribute through Him to the redemption of the world. Christians are especially likely to fall into this category and to participate in it pre-eminently.

A third of humanity are good thieves. They are bad, but they more or less acknowledge and confess it. They would like to be good, but they are weak. They give way to their passions. They are filled with interior remorse. Their sins/demerits outweigh their merits. They tend to waver, to repent and then to relapse, many times. However, in the end, they make an act of contrition, and are saved. They "steal" paradise like the Good Thief, not because they deserve it, but because they are beneficiaries of God's Mercy and of the merits of others, of Christ and the saints.

A third of humanity are bad thieves. They are bad, and they don't care. They habitually will what is evil, and with full consent. They darken their minds and walk about with a "reprobate conscience". They refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness, or to repent. They stir up their passions willingly, are proud and haughty, and desire to lord it over others. The sight of goodness, mercy, charity, compassion, does not move them. They are obstinate. They blaspheme against the Holy Spirit to the very end, and deny His love and forgiveness. They would rather be eternally damned than to be humbled and converted. In the end, they reject Christ.



I think this scheme more or less agrees with our common human experience: a third of humanity are more or less good, a third bad but sorry, and a third obstinately bad. Obviously, some generations/ages will be better than others, but I think this is a fair assessment overall. That two thirds of humanity will be saved, and a third damned, seems a reasonable estimate to me. (I know this is a somewhat crude way of looking at it.) That the salvation of the bad-but-penitent third depends absolutely on the merits of the good third, the other-Christs, seems very fitting from a Christian perspective. It's why we are called to suffer and to pray for sinners. Many souls who could have been saved will be spending eternity in hell, because we Christians are not fervent enough in uniting ourselves to Christ and meriting the salvation of these sinners. We Christians have a very privileged position in the economy of salvation, because not only are we in the best position to secure our own salvation, but also to secure the salvation of others. A third of humanity (billions and billions of souls) should still be sufficient divine wrath to satisfy even the most justice-thirsty of Catholics The view that only a tiny, tiny minority will be saved and the vast, vast majority tossed into hell does not agree with the benevolence of God, or with the salvific mission of Christ and the Church. That many holy people (saints even) held to this kind of opinion seems to be the effect of a certain school of theology (Augustinian, and then later Jansenist), as well as the rigorous lives of these saints which seems to have given them a very heightened sense of sin, which perhaps made them dubious of the salvation of the masses.

On this topic, read the book I linked to at the bottom of my last post, which goes over this.

[Michael Wilson]

There is also the parable of the End of the World and the separation of the "sheep from the goats"; there is always more sheep than goats in a flock, therefore...
The same with the parable of separating the "good fish from the bad" at the end of the catch (and the end of the world); there are always more good fish than bad fish, therefore....
The wheat from the tares; there is always more good wheat than tares, therefore....

[Matto]

Presumptuous fantasies.