M
Myhrr
Guest
Matt16_18 said:
filioque
- Status
filioque
M
Myhrr
Guest
Ignorance? As in Christ saying until sin was pointed out you had no sin? Against one’s will in committing some sin, by force? Any others?
It’s interesting that in exploring this further today I came across the RCC using ‘father quotes’ to prop up the Original Sin dogma and one of those was Origen, so misusing him, but I’d seen a quote previous to that in which he had really wondered why there was infant baptism, he couldn’t understand it - so his teachings about pre-existence of souls, re-incarnation, must have come from his musings about this.
But, the Orthodox don’t have the dogma of substitutionary atonement, a juridical view of our relationship to God, so Orthodox baptism, even using the same words, can’t mean the same thing.
As Matt says, from the Council of Trent:
You are required to believe as infallible dogma that the first man Adam transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise and immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted and that he incurred through that offence the wrath and indignation of God and consequently death with which God had previously threatened him, and together with death, captivity under the power of the devil, and the entire Adam through that offence was changed in body and soul for the worse. Any who do not confess to the above are under RCC anathema.
As Kalomiros’ River of Fire and others explain, that comes from Augustine’s misreading of Genesis in his ‘revelation’ that God said he would kill Adam if he disobeyed. Add to that the mangled extracts he uses from Scripture to suit this revelation of his which contradicts Scripture and the Church and you have the rest of the doctrines of the RCC dogma of Original Sin. Augustine thought his revelation was a higher authority even if it contradicted Christ’s words or Scripture or the teaching of the Church including those fathers that argued against him.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html
Receiving the ‘indwelling of the Holy Spirit’ at baptism is a recent addition by Paul VI an idea taken from the Orthodox where it is given in chrismation. Before Paul VI the RCC baptism didn’t have this, the gift of strength of the Holy Spirit was given at Confirmation.
M
Myhrr
Guest
a pilgrim:
Pilgrim, do you have the same form in 1292 as above in the Latin rite or in the Orthodox? That is, is the Gift of the Holy Spirit at confirmation connection to the Church in Pentecost or to the bishop?
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Then why don’t you clear up the confusion? Explain to us what you mean by uncreated grace. Be specific.
You obviously don’t understand that I believe that the Holy Spirit is God - the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The grace of the Church given by Christ and the Holy Spirit is different to the grace which God bestows on all creatures.
The Fathers (forgive me if I cannot name them at straight off) explain that prior to the sending of the Spirit into the world by Christ He acted on men only in an external manner. This, they say is what allowed the men of Old Israel to attain to righteousness under the Law, but holiness-sanctity was not within their grasp since the Spirit did not dwell in their hearts and souls. Holiness, sharing in God’s own holiness, becomes possible only when the Holy Spirit has been received. As the prologue of Saint John’s Gospel says: “For the law was given to us by Moses, but grace and truth come to us through Jesus Christ.”
If anybody can put their finger on the texts where the Fathers explain this, I’d be grateful.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
A man looses control of his car and it collides with another car and kills a man. As a result one woman is without a husband and some children are without a father. This reverberates in their lives negatively for many years to come. A certain amount of evil has been brought into their lives and into the world by the driver’s involuntary sin.
A priest turns too quickly from the Altar and in his haste he overturns the Chalice and its precious contents spill on the floor. This is an involuntary sin.
We offend another person by some idle word. As Jesus says (Matthew 16:36): “But I say to you that for every idle **word **men may speak, they will give account of it on the day of judgment.” The other person is wounded by what we have said unintentionally and slips into despair. This is an involuntary sin.
So involunatary sins are those for which we have no real intention but all the same they inflict a wound on somebody, they bring some evil and negativity into the cosmos and this is contrary to the beneficient will of the Almighty. We must feel grief that we commit them and cause harm to others.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
An interesting aside.
The site which you quote is a CATHOLIC site from one of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.
It teaches that we are able to sin unwillingly.
This is plain contrary to all Roman Catholic doctrine which is clear that sin cannot be commited without knowledge and intention.
So this is an exmple that doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Catholic Churches may not be in agreement !!!
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The more I learn about comtemporary Catholic teaching on some points, the more I can see that there is indeed a proces of return to an older theology as expressed in the Fathers. This is also the theology of the Orthodox and it delights my old soul to see this transition underway in the Catholic Church.
I think that Myrrh is correct when s/he points out that this is casing some inconsistency since it is sometimes in conflict with the pre-Vatican II theology and can appear as an awkward imposition on it, especially for those Catholicas who still remember the teachings of the pre-Vatican II church.
But by and large the East can only rejoice to see the changes underway in the West and the return to a theology based more squarely on Patristics.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
As I Catholic, I rejoice to see that some Orthodox are finally beginning to understand what the Catholics have always believed.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Adam’s sin was, of course, not involuntary, but it was committed in holy innocence, and his sin certainly brought evil and negativity into the cosmos contrary to the beneficent will of the Almighty.
The baptism of infants removes one of those evil consequences of Adam’s sin. It removes the loss of sanctifying grace that this child of Adam suffered because of the evil Adam brought into the world. Baptism also bestows the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the infant, a gift that Adam did not possess, and a gift that the infant receives only because God is beneficent.
Adam was possessed holy innocence before the Fall. He was living in Paradise without a knowledge of guilt or shame. In Paradise there was no death, disease or decay . Adam didn’t know the consequences of what the sin of disobedience would do to himself, his progeny, or to creation.
Adam’s sin was, of course, not involuntary, but it was committed in holy innocence, and his sin certainly brought evil and negativity into the cosmos contrary to the beneficent will of the Almighty.
The baptism of infants removes one of those evil consequences of Adam’s sin. It removes the loss of sanctifying grace that this child of Adam suffered because of the evil Adam brought into the world. Baptism also bestows the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the infant, a gift that Adam did not possess, and a gift that the infant receives only because God is beneficent.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The Council of Trent, as I have quoted, sees this as an ancillary effect of Original Sin and it makes clear that this is NOT the essence of what is inherited by generation (i.e., by sex and conception) in Original Sin. The essence of what is inherited by every human is sin and guilt, and the wrath and indignation of God. Read Trent!!! I suspect that you may be blessedly unaware that you are in danger of falling under the Anathemas issued at Trent.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
The Catholic Church teaches the same thing as you have written above. Men could prophesy in the OT only when the Holy Spirit overshadowed them, but they never possessed the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when they prophesized.
The Catholic Church certainly recognizes that the grace that God bestows on creation is different than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as created grace or the effects of God beneficence.
Scripture teaches us that God is present in every creature by a general presence, often called the presence of immensity. … [God] sees all, preserves all things in existence, and inclines every creature to the action which is suitable for him. He is like the radiant source from which the life of creation springs, and also the central force that draws everything to itself: “O God, sustaining force of creation, remaining in Thyself, unmoved.”
Holy Scripture does not, however, speak only of this general presence of God in all things; it also speaks of a special presence of God in the just. We read, in fact, even in the Old Testament: “Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.” (3) Would only created grace or the created gift of wisdom dwell in the just soul? Christ’s words bring us a new light and show us that it is the divine persons Themselves who come and dwell in us: “If anyone love Me,” He says, “he will keep My word. And My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him.” (4) These words should be noted: “We will come.” Who will come? Would it be only created effects: sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts? No indeed; Those who come are Those who love: the divine persons, the Father and the Son, from whom the Holy Ghost is never separated, that Spirit of Love promised, moreover, by our Lord and visibly sent on Pentecost. “We will come to him,” to the just soul who loves God, and “We will come” not only in a transitory, passing manner, but “We will make our abode with him,” that is to say, We will dwell in him as long as he remains just, or in the state of grace, as long as he preserves charity. Such were our Lord’s own words.
Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP
First, I note that you are saying that infants are NOT born with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that is my point of contention with Myhrr.
The Catholic Church teaches the same thing as you have written above. Men could prophesy in the OT only when the Holy Spirit overshadowed them, but they never possessed the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when they prophesized.
The Catholic Church certainly recognizes that the grace that God bestows on creation is different than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as created grace or the effects of God beneficence.
Scripture teaches us that God is present in every creature by a general presence, often called the presence of immensity. … [God] sees all, preserves all things in existence, and inclines every creature to the action which is suitable for him. He is like the radiant source from which the life of creation springs, and also the central force that draws everything to itself: “O God, sustaining force of creation, remaining in Thyself, unmoved.”
Holy Scripture does not, however, speak only of this general presence of God in all things; it also speaks of a special presence of God in the just. We read, in fact, even in the Old Testament: “Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.” (3) Would only created grace or the created gift of wisdom dwell in the just soul? Christ’s words bring us a new light and show us that it is the divine persons Themselves who come and dwell in us: “If anyone love Me,” He says, “he will keep My word. And My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him.” (4) These words should be noted: “We will come.” Who will come? Would it be only created effects: sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts? No indeed; Those who come are Those who love: the divine persons, the Father and the Son, from whom the Holy Ghost is never separated, that Spirit of Love promised, moreover, by our Lord and visibly sent on Pentecost. “We will come to him,” to the just soul who loves God, and “We will come” not only in a transitory, passing manner, but “We will make our abode with him,” that is to say, We will dwell in him as long as he remains just, or in the state of grace, as long as he preserves charity. Such were our Lord’s own words.
- Wisd. 1:4.
- John 14:13.
Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
The Catechism that I have been quoting affirms what was written at the Council of Trent.
I have read Trent.
The Catechism that I have been quoting affirms what was written at the Council of Trent.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
On the contrary it contradicts it quite outstandingly! One may fairly ask, when the teachings of two infallible Councils are contradictory, which is the Council esposing heresy and is the false Council?I have read Trent.
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent…
"If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin…
"Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
…That’s a** major contradiction**. Trent teaches, infallibly, that unbaptized infants have no means of salvation. Vatican II teaches that they are saved. Which of the two Councils is correct and which is teaching heresy?..
"Baptism Of Adults
"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time… The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants…
"First Effect Of Baptism: Remission Of Sin
"They are to be taught, in the first place, that such is the admirable efficacy of this Sacrament that it remits original sin and actual guilt, however unthinkable its enormity may seem.
"That such was at all times the doctrine handed down by holy Church is clear. By the generation of the flesh, says St. Augustine in his book On the Baptism of Infants, we contract original sin only…
"To remove all further doubt on the subject, the Council of Trent, after other Councils had defined this, declared it anew, pronouncing anathema against those who should presume to think otherwise, or should dare to assert that although sin is forgiven in Baptism, it is not entirely removed or totally eradicated, but is cut away in such a manner as to leave its roots still fixed in the soul. To use the words of the same holy Council, God hates nothing in those who are regenerated; for there remains nothing deserving of condemnation in those who are truly buried with Christ by Baptism unto death, “who walk not according to the flesh” but putting off the old man, and putting on the new, who is created according to God, become innocent, spotless, pure, upright, and beloved of God.
"The remission of all sin, original and actual, is therefore the peculiar effect of Baptism. That this was the object of its institution by our Lord and Saviour is clearly stated by the Prince of the Apostles, to say nothing of other testimonies, when he says: Do penance and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.
“Baptism also remits all the punishment due to original sin after this life…”
If the new Catholic doctrine is that “Original Sin” means only a weakening of the will, a darkining of the mind and an inclination to sin, thern Trent was plainly talking nonsense when it speaks of Baptism remittting all the punishment due to Original Sin. There is no sin at all in the weakening of the will ansd the other ancillary effects of Original Sin. There is nothing to remit.
Matt, we have to concur with Myrrh that the doctrines of Trent and Vatican II are contradictory and that what is being taught today is radically different to what was taught pre Vatican II.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Council of Trent, fifth session
At least some Orthodox bishops teach that baptism is “absolutely” necessary for salvation:
ORTHODOX CATECHISM
Basic Teachings of the Orthodox Faith
by Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios
Baptism
The first of the seven sacraments of our Church is Baptism. It is sent from God. Christ Himself commanded it when he said to His disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew, 28:19); elsewhere He said “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark, 16:15-16).
In these words of Christ we see firstly that He established baptism, and secondly that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Do the Orthodox believe that “baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”?
Your objection is not against what the Catholic Church teaches, it is against what the Apostle Paul teaches:
- If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Council of Trent, fifth session
Read the quotes in their context, that is all I can say. When the quotes are read in context, Trent never contradicts Vatican II.
At least some Orthodox bishops teach that baptism is “absolutely” necessary for salvation:
ORTHODOX CATECHISM
Basic Teachings of the Orthodox Faith
by Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios
Baptism
The first of the seven sacraments of our Church is Baptism. It is sent from God. Christ Himself commanded it when he said to His disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew, 28:19); elsewhere He said “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark, 16:15-16).
In these words of Christ we see firstly that He established baptism, and secondly that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Do the Orthodox believe that “baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”?
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Isn’t all of this just the same thing as that which we Catholics would call “venial sin”? I think that this point answers post #27 as well. We Catholics are perfectly capable of understanding the idea of involuntary sin.
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Meanwhile, I have gone to some fair lengths to explain the meaning of the Tridentine decrees on Original Sin over on the Original Sin thread. I would encourage the Orthodox participants here to read the entries on that thread.
Horsefeathers. Where does Vatican II teach that unbaptized babies are saved? It teaches no such thing. There simply is no contradiction here. The most we Catholics are willing to say is that (as the Catechism puts it) we entrust the unbaptized infant to the mercy of God. We certainly do not teach that they are surely saved. Quite the contrary, we still believe as Trent teaches, that one must not delay baptism because it is the only means by which we can hope to ensure that a child be saved.
You are confusing the sequelæ of Original Sin with Original Sin itself. We do not believe that Original Sin is merely an inclination to sin. Neither do we believe that it is an inherited personal fault. If you are using the words “Original Sin” to mean either of those two concepts, you are not using it like a Catholic.
Meanwhile, I have gone to some fair lengths to explain the meaning of the Tridentine decrees on Original Sin over on the Original Sin thread. I would encourage the Orthodox participants here to read the entries on that thread.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I have always thought that Catholic doctrine was clear - no sin without volition. This makes involuntary sin an oxymoron.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Catholic theologians speak of material sin and formal sin … just as they speak about material schism and formal schism.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Theologians use the term “material sin” to refer to an act which of its nature is sinful, when the agent is invincibly ignorant of the sinfulness of what he does and therefore does not incur guilt before God by doing it. Here the term matter is used for the immoral act, while form is used for the evil will. But it should be noted that “material sin” is not sin - it is the matter which would become sin if the will were evil, but the matter alone can never make the thing. A material sin is no nearer to being a sin that a willow-tree is to being a cricket bat.Catholic theologians speak of material sin and formal sin … just as they speak about material schism and formal schism.
- Status