Are Orthodox are Catholic theologies mutually exclusive?

[brittrossiter]

Well, Catholics agree with you, of course. We just disagree on the issue of original sin, and I’m trying to illustrate that obvious defect in your theology. Thus far, you haven’t given me any real reasons why it’s important to baptize a child.

…

Baptism does wash away sins–for those who have them, which of course infants do not. But Baptism also unites the baptized to Christ (Romans 6:3-5). Any loving Christian parent should want this, and as soon as possible. That is the urgency. The same is true for the Eucharist–what loving parent would not want Life for his or her child, as often as possible, as soon as possible?

We would never say that any unbaptized person (or an un-Communed one, for that matter) is, by that reason alone, damned. That is simply not the Orthodox faith. The most that we would say about such a person is that they are not a member of the visible Church–but we would also say (as would Catholics, AFAIK) that God, who is Merciful, nonetheless desires that all be saved, and only He truly knows their soul and will know whether or not they will be saved.

As for regular practice, in my parish, infants are communed on the day of their Baptism and Chrismation–all three Sacraments are given on the same day. They are regularly given the Eucharist as often as their parents bring them to church. Once the child reaches roughly age seven, they begin to Confess as well.

To my knowledge, the primary concern that the Orthodox have with Roman Catholic practice in this regard is the separation of the three Sacraments of initiation, and the resulting needless denial of the Eucharist to small children who are just as much members of the Body of Christ as the oldest senior citizen in the parish.

Forgive me,

 

[chimo]

I’m confused as to why Catholics and Orthodox disagree on how different they are. From my experience, most Catholics believe that Papal Supremacy is the only important difference, while most Orthodox would say that it’s much more than that. Does the Catholic Church officially teach that besides Papal Supremacy an Papal Infallibility, no contradiction exists between Western and Eastern theology? If so, then how is the Filioque controversy not mutually exclusive?

Best Regards.

Ike

I am sure both groups are just as confused! In my observations of both Churches it can said that both give out our Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the same degree. We can receive the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit in either Church within the same Sacraments. There is no difference here. There is also no difference in increasing the level of holiness when one is witnessing to the Lord outside the Mass and the Divine Liturgy. In either Church you can become a saint. What is different is the interpretation of what they teach. For instance an Orthodox may not understand Purgatory but the Orthodox prays for the departed anyway sometimes much more than what the average Catholic does. Another instance is Mary. The Orthodox and Catholic have great devotions on Mary but the Catholic Church tends to bring teachings on Mary toward a dogma level whereas the Orthodox will keep them not towards a dogma level. Yet in both Churches there is great love towards the same Mother. You see the differences tends to come in to play through their interpretation and one’s interpretation is not that well known to the other. It is how you were taught. Each Church may present a different approach in learning about the Faith. The Catholic Church brings out a more discipline approach while the Eastern Churches tend to bring out more of a nurturer approach. In fact this difference in disciplining and nurturing/mentoring can point out why these two Churches uses two different approaches. By combining both approaches you have the necessary ingredient for bringing up a family.

 

[icamhif]

I am sure both groups are just as confused! In my observations of both Churches it can said that both give out our Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the same degree. We can receive the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit in either Church within the same Sacraments. There is no difference here. There is also no difference in increasing the level of holiness when one is witnessing to the Lord outside the Mass and the Divine Liturgy. In either Church you can become a saint. What is different is the interpretation of what they teach. For instance an Orthodox may not understand Purgatory but the Orthodox prays for the departed anyway sometimes much more than what the average Catholic does. Another instance is Mary. The Orthodox and Catholic have great devotions on Mary but the Catholic Church tends to bring teachings on Mary toward a dogma level whereas the Orthodox will keep them not towards a dogma level. Yet in both Churches there is great love towards the same Mother. You see the differences tends to come in to play through their interpretation and one’s interpretation is not that well known to the other. It is how you were taught. Each Church may present a different approach in learning about the Faith. The Catholic Church brings out a more discipline approach while the Eastern Churches tend to bring out more of a nurturer approach. In fact this difference in disciplining and nurturing/mentoring can point out why these two Churches uses two different approaches. By combining both approaches you have the necessary ingredient for bringing up a family.

Great answer! I like your insight.

Thanks.

Ike

 

[prodromos]

Well, Catholics agree with you, of course. We just disagree on the issue of original sin, and I’m trying to illustrate that obvious defect in your theology.

There is no defect in our theology. Even your own Popes have declared that we have maintained the faith handed down by the Apostles.

Thus far, you haven’t given me any real reasons why it’s important to baptize a child.

We want to bring our newborn children into the land of milk and honey rather than force them to remain in the desert until they reach some arbitrary age.

But the ECF’s argued for baptizing immediately and not waiting? Why the urgency? What was the risk, prodromos?

Your question makes no sense in the context of the Orthodox faith. If you can’t understand why we want our children to experience the full riches of God’s grace from as early as possible then I don’t think there is much point in responding further. It would be like trying to explain colour to a blind man.

The very passage I expected you to quote. So, can people who are baptized but never receive the Eucharist go to heaven or not?

That is not for me to judge.

Thank you for this information. I did not know what your common practice is. So, infants of three, six, nine months, etc, are given communion every week at Divine Liturgy?

I’m just making sure I understand you. Thanks.

Yes, every week. Didn’t Jesus rebuke His disciples when they tried to keep the children from Him? And yet here is 99.5% of the Catholic Church doing exactly the same thing.
I’m still waiting for a response to my earlier post about this. You all seem very quiet. Will no one answer?

 

[prodromos]

In case you missed it

Why does the Catholic Church excommunicate infants when the early Church did no such thing? Why does the Catholic Church bar the little ones from Christ’s life giving blood and the bread of immortality?

When did the Catholic Church come up with its doctrine of the “age of reason” in defense of their departure from Apostolic tradition?

 

[lerapt78]

To the below posters, I’m not challenging here, but asking for clarification for my own understanding:

Contrary to the popular conception of many Orthodox Christians and even Catholics, the “guilt” of Original Sin is NOT a personal guilt. The Catechism is clear on this. It refers primarily to man inheriting the CONSEQUENCES of Adam’s fall, but not personal guilt. Most importantly, we are conceived separated from God’s sanctifying grace. Baptism restores us to full communion with God by giving us a share of the very divine life of the Trinity (sanctifying grace). Fundamentally, I think many Orthodox can agree with this.

I understand that those beyond the capacity to reason cannot technically add sin in addition to the Original Sin we inherited, however the lack of personal guilt aside, is it not the sin of Original Sin itself that prevents infants from saving grace until it is cleansed through baptism?

My understanding is that unbaptized infants are not condemned - as in, they do not go to Hell if they die unbaptized - and yet they don’t enter Heaven either. Is this not the rationale behind the concept of limbo (which we are free to accept or reject), that it is neither Heaven nor Hell?

Anyone below the age of reason or without the mental capacity to commit personal sins does not need baptism to wash them away. And yet, because of Sacred Tradition handed down from the apostles, Orthodox baptize infants anyway.

Why would Tradition teach infant baptism if the Apostles did not believe that infants needed original sin washed away?

Are you saying that *personal *sins do not need to be cleansed through Baptism (because infants are incapable of committing them), but that Original Sin does need to be cleansed because it alone has an effect on eternal salvation? You are differentiating between personal and original sin, but acknowledging that both affect salvation?

 

[chimo]

In case you missed it

Perhaps, Prodromos the Catholic Church did those things which you have quoted in the past but the Catholic Church is moving towards the ideal which the Eastern Churches had always accepted for her children. This movement to come in align to what the Eastern Churches had always accepted must take time before it can be easily accepted and adopted. Pope Pius X brought a better understanding when he instituted a much earlier reception of Holy Communion for children. The Eastern model is the ideal model for our present times. The ability for God’s Holy Spirit to be given to babies and very young children through the Eucharist will build up their defences much earlier than what the present model does for the Catholic Church. Grace can always build up in a person even if that person is unaware of it. That is why as Orthodox and all Eastern Christians, we prefer our baptized babies and younger children to receive Holy Communion right away.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Baptism does wash away sins–for those who have them, which of course infants do not. But Baptism also unites the baptized to Christ (Romans 6:3-5). Any loving Christian parent should want this, and as soon as possible. That is the urgency. The same is true for the Eucharist–what loving parent would not want Life for his or her child, as often as possible, as soon as possible?

I am familiar with the scriptures and I agree with your points. However, if infants have not inherited original sin, why the rush to get infants baptized as seen in the writings of the ECF? Would it have mattered if they had waited a few weeks or months?

I’m trying to get folks to see that there is a REASON that the Fathers advocated baptizing quickly, and that reason (in light of infant mortality issues) was original sin.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no defect in our theology. Even your own Popes have declared that we have maintained the faith handed down by the Apostles.

We want to bring our newborn children into the land of milk and honey rather than force them to remain in the desert until they reach some arbitrary age.

Your question makes no sense in the context of the Orthodox faith. If you can’t understand why we want our children to experience the full riches of God’s grace from as early as possible then I don’t think there is much point in responding further. It would be like trying to explain colour to a blind man.

That is not for me to judge.

Yes, every week. Didn’t Jesus rebuke His disciples when they tried to keep the children from Him? And yet here is 99.5% of the Catholic Church doing exactly the same thing.
I’m still waiting for a response to my earlier post about this. You all seem very quiet. Will no one answer?

I didn’t fail to answer on purpose. Please ask again and I will be sure to give my best.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Are you saying that *personal *sins do not need to be cleansed through Baptism (because infants are incapable of committing them), but that Original Sin does need to be cleansed because it alone has an effect on eternal salvation? You are differentiating between personal and original sin, but acknowledging that both affect salvation?

Interesting question which I’ll let Randy answer. I also think clarification may help if we consider actual sin under the mosaic regime. Could actual sin be forgiven?

 

[Per_Crucem]

:nope:

I’ve been to mass in many parts of North America.

I’ve never seen anything like the YouTube video.

I believe the YouTube video is Latin America.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation. Do Orthodox infants line up in their strollers every week? Or do you simply place a teeny weeny bit of host and wine on their lips one time just to say that it has been done?

Spoken like a true Baptist.

You know that Eastern Catholics do that, too, right?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am familiar with the scriptures and I agree with your points. However, if infants have not inherited original sin, why the rush to get infants baptized as seen in the writings of the ECF? Would it have mattered if they had waited a few weeks or months?

I’m trying to get folks to see that there is a REASON that the Fathers advocated baptizing quickly, and that reason (in light of infant mortality issues) was original sin.

That may or may not be the case, depending on the father in question. The fact of the matter is that fathers earlier than say, Augustine, may not have meant the same thing as Augustine with the language they used. It can’t be read anachronistically.

I am wondering, though, if this is such a huge issue between the Catholics and Orthodox, then why does it not affect relations between the Latin Catholics and Byzantine Catholics, who have the same understanding of original sin as the Orthodox?

 

[Kmon23]

I am familiar with the scriptures and I agree with your points. However, if infants have not inherited original sin, why the rush to get infants baptized as seen in the writings of the ECF? Would it have mattered if they had waited a few weeks or months?

I’m trying to get folks to see that there is a REASON that the Fathers advocated baptizing quickly, and that reason (in light of infant mortality issues) was original sin.

But we don’t deny that infants and everyone (save Christ our Lord) have original sin. We all have ancestral sin… so I’m not sure what you are getting at.

And as far as I am concerned (at least from what the Vatican has to say) our ancestral sin is complementary and compatible with Latin theology of it (namely original sin).

 

[chimo]

That may or may not be the case, depending on the father in question. The fact of the matter is that fathers earlier than say, Augustine, may not have meant the same thing as Augustine with the language they used. It can’t be read anachronistically.

I am wondering, though, if this is such a huge issue between the Catholics and Orthodox, then why does it not affect relations between the Latin Catholics and Byzantine Catholics, who have the same understanding of original sin as the Orthodox?

Probably it is because most people do not know what the other Church is teaching. Exposure to other Church’s teachings takes time and contacts and if people are not checking out what the other Church teaches they usually only presume what the other does teach. I don’t know if this teaching on Original Sin is a big issue between Catholics and the Orthodox. Some people may think it is but again most people do not really care. Original Sin anyway loses it punch when one is baptized so that is where Orthodox and Catholics must go when they are sharing the same gifts.

 

[dronald]

Excommunicate infants?

Can somebody fill me in on what that means?

 

[Kmon23]

Excommunicate infants?

Can somebody fill me in on what that means?

Maybe children of excommunicated people? Even I’m not sure.

 

[dronald]

Here is an example of an Orthodox comparison between the two liturgies from an Orthodox pov:
youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk

The Orthodox service in the video makes me think of Luke 7:25.

The Catholic service makes me wonder whether I should laugh or cry. I assume the Pope or a Cardinal has already shot this down hard, correct? There’s no way that it hasn’t gotten to the higher ups and they’ve squashed this sickening presentation of the Bible.

 

[RyanBlack]

Excommunicate infants?

Can somebody fill me in on what that means?

To excommunicate literally means to place outside of communion. What is meant when people speak of excommunicating baptized infants is that they are not permitted to receive communion.

 

[Kmon23]

The Orthodox service in the video makes me think of Luke 7:25.

The Catholic service makes me wonder whether I should laugh or cry. I assume the Pope or a Cardinal has already shot this down hard, correct? There’s no way that it hasn’t gotten to the higher ups and they’ve squashed this sickening presentation of the Bible.

I hope you realize the liturgical garments are not representative of the lives of these people. I have a great parish priest and he also has beautiful garments. But they are the church’s, and are only worn for liturgical purposes. Outside of that setting, he wears plain black priest robes. In light of that, I don’t see how Luke 7:25 applies