Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

[Marybeloved]

THis is what the modern Catholic Church teaches - I think it is a bit questionable to assert that it has always taught this.

Consider that the the Catholic Church, even today, says that we cannot know the fate of unbaptized babies, and until recently the most popular view was that they did not go to Heaven. (So much so that in some places babies who died unbaptized were not allowed to be buried in Catholic cemeteries). The Orthodox do not teach this.

This I think point to a difference, though a more subtle one than some want to admit subtle one, in the understanding of original sin and its effects. I think the Catholic Church has actually moved closer to the Orthodox understanding in recent years - many Orthodox would probably have no issue with the understanding of Original Sin found in the CCC.

Please show me any formal teaching of the church from any era that has taught otherwise. Show me just when and how the church taught that we inherist Adam’s guilt, and not just the punishment of the sin (sin, suffering, tendency to sin).

 

[joshrp]

All the arugments about IC and the Filioque are pointless if the Church can’t lead me to salvation. If it affirms me in my mortal sin instead of calling me out of it and offering absolution from it.

Honestly, the Filioque clause is a matter of semantics. Essentially both church’s mean the same thing, they are just using different wording.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Honestly, the Filioque clause is a matter of semantics. Essentially both church’s mean the same thing, they are just using different wording.

I don’t know about that…

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Please show me any formal teaching of the church from any era that has taught otherwise. Show me just when and how the church taught that we inherist Adam’s guilt, and not just the punishment of the sin (sin, suffering, tendency to sin).

Fifth Session, Council of Trent :

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism,* the guilt of original sin** is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.*”

 

[Marybeloved]

You know, a lot of Anglicans feel this way towards the Catholic Church. And then Catholics say “sorry, you are outside the Church and you must come back to her, even though we know we are all brothers in Christ” Unity has to be real unity, we cannot forget about serious doctrinal issues.

Well, that’s fine, I can understand that position, even if I do not agree with parts of it.

What I find weird is when those same people get all upset when the Orthodox say the same thing to them, as if it is some personal affront.

Of course this is a false comparison. The Anglicans, for one very important consideration, have no valid sacraments. They allowed the bishops who had the charisms die away for almost two centuries without passing them on to others. By the time they realized the error of throwing away the sacraments, there was no one left with apostolic succession or the powers of effecting the sacraments. Furthermore, the differences between what anglicanism had been holding to in belief and catholicism had involved a wide gap, nothing like what the orthodox purpot to be the differences in the faiths of the catholic and orthodox churches. Of course progress is being made(Anglican and Catholic talks) for sure, and we eagerly wait the day we can enjoy union, just as we do with the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.

One of the problems between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox efforts towards union is ofcourse this awful habit of insisting on ascribing to the other side what you think they teach. Honest polemics, I saw described somewhere else, involves first understanding what the other side’s position actually is- This involves a series of questions, the other side answers, you repeat the answer as you understand it, the other side confirms or clarifies and then again until you’re both clear on what each actually means and then proceed to debate on the merits of each position. You don’t insist “you hold this, and I don’t agree with it” when the other side is saying “Actually, I have no idea what you’re talking about, coz what I actually hold is this” And then you go “No, but I believe you hold this position, and that’s that!” This attitude is what Catholics complain about- the dishonest polemics- Not the waiting first of reaching agreements before union. We know without honest, open discussions, everything else is moot.

Catholics don’t want to just fly into union with EO as you suggest- What we do want is to engage in honest talks and discussions. First- To remove any misunderstandings so that we are all clear what we truly do agree on, to get that out of the way. After all, why spend any more decades/centuries arguing over something nobody in fact teaches or believes? Secondly, what we do differ on to ask- Is that truly a contradiction or difference in emphases, understanding, language, tradition etc.

 

[Marybeloved]

Fifth Session, Council of Trent :

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism,* the guilt of original sin*** is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.”

But the Church has clarified again and again that the western use of the words guilt, sin, stain, punishment generally refer to our fallen state- She has clarified that when the word guilt is used in the sense in which is used above, it is merely figurative and speaks of the (collective) fallen nature of man, NOT the personal fault of Adam. The individual suffers from the effects of Adam’s sin and bears the guilt (that is, he’s faulted) of his own personal sins upon attaining the age of reason, and that’s the understanding we find in the writings of the saints from centuries past.

Or Is not the Catholic Church the only rightful interpreter of her own teachings?

 

[Marybeloved]

But the Church has clarified again and again that the western use of the words guilt, sin, stain, punishment generally refer to our fallen state- She has clarified that when the word guilt is used in the sense in which is used above, it is merely figurative and speaks of the (collective) fallen nature of man, NOT the personal fault of Adam. The individual suffers from the effects of Adam’s sin and bears the guilt (that is, he’s faulted) of his own personal sins upon attaining the age of reason, and that’s the understanding we find in the writings of the saints from centuries past.

Or Is not the Catholic Church the only rightful interpreter of her own teachings?

I thought I’d add this link to a thread here explaining the Trent teaching on original sin
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=583885

Hope it helps

 

[Bluegoat]

Of course this is a false comparison. The Anglicans, for one very important consideration, have no valid sacraments. They allowed the bishops who had the charisms die away for almost two centuries without passing them on to others. By the time they realized the error of throwing away the sacraments, there was no one left with apostolic succession or the powers of effecting the sacraments. Furthermore, the differences between what anglicanism had been holding to in belief and catholicism had involved a wide gap, nothing like what the orthodox purpot to be the differences in the faiths of the catholic and orthodox churches. Of course progress is being made(Anglican and Catholic talks) for sure, and we eagerly wait the day we can enjoy union, just as we do with the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.

One of the problems between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox efforts towards union is ofcourse this awful habit of insisting on ascribing to the other side what you think they teach. Honest polemics, I saw described somewhere else, involves first understanding what the other side’s position actually is- This involves a series of questions, the other side answers, you repeat the answer as you understand it, the other side confirms or clarifies and then again until you’re both clear on what each actually means and then proceed to debate on the merits of each position. You don’t insist “you hold this, and I don’t agree with it” when the other side is saying “Actually, I have no idea what you’re talking about, coz what I actually hold is this” And then you go “No, but I believe you hold this position, and that’s that!” This attitude is what Catholics complain about- the dishonest polemics- Not the waiting first of reaching agreements before union. We know without honest, open discussions, everything else is moot.

Catholics don’t want to just fly into union with EO as you suggest- What we do want is to engage in honest talks and discussions. First- To remove any misunderstandings so that we are all clear what we truly do agree on, to get that out of the way. After all, why spend any more decades/centuries arguing over something nobody in fact teaches or believes? Secondly, what we do differ on to ask- Is that truly a contradiction or difference in emphases, understanding, language, tradition etc.

No, actually, it is precisely the same. Anglicans believe we are part of the visible Church with real Sacraments, while Catholics say we are not. Okey-dokey.

In the case of the Orthodox and Catholics, the Catholics believe they are part of the visible Church and have real Sacraments, while the Orthodox say they are not. From the Orthodox perspective, Catholics are not part of the Church, and so they may not have real Sacraments.

Some Catholics get all bent out of shape about this, or simply deny it reflects Orthodox teaching, both of which are a bit odd given the Catholic view of Protestant bodies…

 

[Bluegoat]

I thought I’d add this link to a thread here explaining the Trent teaching on original sin
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=583885

Hope it helps

Can you then explain, if the teachings are in fact the same, why the same teachings lead to different conclusions about the fate of unbaptized infants after death?

 

[Bluegoat]

Is it fair to say that those souls in heaven do not need our prayers and those souls in hell cannot benefit from our prayers? Only those souls that are not in heaven or hell can benefit from our prayers? If so, what about the toll houses as Raub suggested?

What makes you think those people in Heaven or Hell can get nothing from our prayers? That seems to be a major assumption.

What makes you think, that if God wanted to give the individuals in question some benefit from our prayers, he could not give the benefit to them in a time before their deaths?

 

[RTully]

From the Orthodox perspective, Catholics are not part of the Church, and so they may not have real Sacraments.

Some Catholics get all bent out of shape about this, or simply deny it reflects Orthodox teaching, both of which are a bit odd given the Catholic view of Protestant bodies…

Amen.

Many Catholics get all bent out of shape when they are accussed of the same thing they accuse others of. The Eastern Orthodox church has been around as long and also claims aposolistic authority so the Catholics can’t pull the we’re the real church we’ve been around the longest argument they make against Protestants.

 

[Marybeloved]

Can you then explain, if the teachings are in fact the same, why the same teachings lead to different conclusions about the fate of unbaptized infants after death?

What I understand is that the Church has always taught that the means known and available for the remission of original sin and therefore of making it possible to enjoy the beatific vision (to see God) is baptism- That is the teaching to the present day. Without sanctifying grace, it’s impossible to see God. The Church has always had differing theologians who have interpreted her teachings in different ways- After all, why bother with the councils unless there very divergent (even plausible according to human reason) understandings of the same faith. As long as they are not the official teaching of the church they don’t necessarily constitute her faith- This is also the case in even orthodox churches where there was a time that many theologians taught the immaculate conception.

Some theologians used to speculate that the unbaptized infants live in perfect natural happiness but without the beatific vision, others that they went to hell, as in the punishment of the damned and not just the privation of the beatific vision as the limbo group taught. It was an attempt to understand the necessity of the sacrament of baptism and God’s mercies. The Pope says that it’s possible for God to provide the necessary sanctifying grace to the weak ones who cannot otherwise attain it, in means and ways we cannot know- So we can Hope but we don’t know for sure what God does with them- He has not told us. The bottom line is that without the grace we usually get in baptism, the beatific vision is not possible. But if God can use other means to provide this same grace (beyond the sacraments) of course he’s both powerful enough and merciful enough, not just with regards to babies but other unbelievers who through no fault of their own cannot access the means given to the church for salvation.

I hope it helps.

 

[Bluegoat]

What I understand is that the Church has always taught that the means known and available for the remission of original sin and therefore of making it possible to enjoy the beatific vision (to see God) is baptism- That is the teaching to the present day. Without sanctifying grace, it’s impossible to see God. The Church has always had differing theologians who have interpreted her teachings in different ways- After all, why bother with the councils unless there very divergent (even plausible according to human reason) understandings of the same faith. As long as they are not the official teaching of the church they don’t necessarily constitute her faith- This is also the case in even orthodox churches where there was a time that many theologians taught the immaculate conception.

Some theologians used to speculate that the unbaptized infants live in perfect natural happiness but without the beatific vision, others that they went to hell, as in the punishment of the damned and not just the privation of the beatific vision as the limbo group taught. It was an attempt to understand the necessity of the sacrament of baptism and God’s mercies. The Pope says that it’s possible for God to provide the necessary sanctifying grace to the weak ones who cannot otherwise attain it, in means and ways we cannot know- So we can Hope but we don’t know for sure what God does with them- He has not told us. The bottom line is that without the grace we usually get in baptism, the beatific vision is not possible. But if God can use other means to provide this same grace (beyond the sacraments) of course he’s both powerful enough and merciful enough, not just with regards to babies but other unbelievers who through no fault of their own cannot access the means given to the church for salvation.

I hope it helps.

I understand the Catholic position, thanks.

The Catholic view here relates closely to how the Western Church has understood original sin. Because of the “stain” of original sin, we cannot know that unbaptized infants who have in fact committed no personal sin go to Heaven. That is, that stain acts to separate the infant from Heaven in much the same way as personal sin.

The Eastern Church does not talk about Original Sin at all, though they talk about it’s effects. This is very similar to the Catholic way of thinking as far as it goes. But where you can see the difference is in how they understand the fate of the unbaptized infant. From their POV there is no hesitation in saying an unbaptized infant goes to Heaven, because there is no personal sin, and no idea of Original Sin that the infant is subject to.

If you consider this difference, I think it should be clear why the Orthodox feel that the Western Church is claiming that all are subject to Original Sin in a way that is personal, no matter that they do not put it that way. There is not much more personal than a person being denied Heaven from the perspective of that individual.

If you want to say that Original Sin is just a stain and not personal guilt, and say this is no different from what the Orthodox think just phrased differently, then you need to account for the different views of what happens to those who die unbaptized but having committed no personal sin.

I hope this helps.

 

[Hesychios]

Orthodox do not have a theology of the Beatific Vision that matches the Roman catholic understanding.

I am not well versed on it myself, but the RC notion of Beatific Vision has been attributed to neo-platonism by some. I myself am not so sure since it is not an area of study for me.

But the primary purpose of baptism is not to free one to ‘see’ the Beatific Vision. The primary purpose is to bring one into the church.

Yes, baptism forgives sins, if one has sins to forgive. So does receiving communion forgive sins, as does (obviously) confession.

If a newborn has not committed any sins, there is nothing to forgive.

 

[Marybeloved]

I understand the Catholic position, thanks.

The Catholic view here relates closely to how the Western Church has understood original sin. Because of the “stain” of original sin, we cannot know that unbaptized infants who have in fact committed no personal sin go to Heaven. That is, that stain acts to separate the infant from Heaven in much the same way as personal sin.

The Eastern Church does not talk about Original Sin at all, though they talk about it’s effects. This is very similar to the Catholic way of thinking as far as it goes. But where you can see the difference is in how they understand the fate of the unbaptized infant. From their POV there is no hesitation in saying an unbaptized infant goes to Heaven, because there is no personal sin, and no idea of Original Sin that the infant is subject to.

If you consider this difference, I think it should be clear why the Orthodox feel that the Western Church is claiming that all are subject to Original Sin in a way that is personal, no matter that they do not put it that way. There is not much more personal than a person being denied Heaven from the perspective of that individual.

If you want to say that Original Sin is just a stain and not personal guilt, and say this is no different from what the Orthodox think just phrased differently, then you need to account for the different views of what happens to those who die unbaptized but having committed no personal sin.

I hope this helps.

I’m not sure that we understand each other’s position correctly. The speculation about what happens to an unbaptized person came about due to the teaching that baptism is necessary for union with Christ and therefore heaven- not due to the original sin doctrine. Baptism is what introduces the life of grace to the soul, and this life of grace is what leads to the beatific vision. As far as I know this is the identical teaching of the orthodox about baptism and its necessity for salvation.

“Verily I say to you, unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” Jesus in the gospel St John 3:3-5.

That’s why the theologians then asked- so what about those who are not baptized through no fault of their own?- If baptism is necessary for salvation, and God wants all people to be saved, what happens to those unbaptized through no fault of their own? This lead to the myriad of theological speculation I referred to earlier. The point isn’t even so much as you put it “original sin separates us from God like the way personal sin does”. (Indeed I’d wonder what exactly Christ came to “reconcile” as the scriptures put it, if there was no separation between man and God).

The thing is we need grace to see God, we get it through baptism- How about those who are not baptized? The Church says God can give this grace through means and ways known to him alone (outside of the means he has given the church) so we have reason to hope in his mercies that this is what he has done. This is different from what youre saying about it all being about a stain of sin.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m not sure that we understand each other’s position correctly. The speculation about what happens to an unbaptized person came about due to the teaching that baptism is necessary for union with Christ and therefore heaven- not due to the original sin doctrine. Baptism is what introduces the life of grace to the soul, and this life of grace is what leads to the beatific vision. As far as I know this is the identical teaching of the orthodox about baptism and its necessity for salvation.

“Verily I say to you, unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” Jesus in the gospel St John 3:3-5.

That’s why the theologians then asked- so what about those who are not baptized through no fault of their own?- If baptism is necessary for salvation, and God wants all people to be saved, what happens to those unbaptized through no fault of their own? This lead to the myriad of theological speculation I referred to earlier. The point isn’t even so much as you put it “original sin separates us from God like the way personal sin does”. (Indeed I’d wonder what exactly Christ came to “reconcile” as the scriptures put it, if there was no separation between man and God).

The thing is we need grace to see God, we get it through baptism- How about those who are not baptized? The Church says God can give this grace through means and ways known to him alone (outside of the means he has given the church) so we have reason to hope in his mercies that this is what he has done. This is different from what youre saying about it all being about a stain of sin.

Why do you think baptism is required to see God? The understanding of baptism is connected to the understanding of original sin. The Western Church sees baptism as required because it washes away the stain of original sin, allowing full union with God. That is why a baby still requires it.

The East does not say baptism is required to wash away this stain, and their baptismal doctrine is not in fact identical to the Catholic Church.

 

[Marybeloved]

Orthodox do not have a theology of the Beatific Vision that matches the Roman catholic understanding.

I am not well versed on it myself, but the RC notion of Beatific Vision has been attributed to neo-platonism by some. I myself am not so sure since it is not an area of study for me.

But the primary purpose of baptism is not to free one to ‘see’ the Beatific Vision. The primary purpose is to bring one into the church.

Yes, baptism forgives sins, if one has sins to forgive. So does receiving communion forgive sins, as does (obviously) confession.

If a newborn has not committed any sins, there is nothing to forgive.

This link is from an orthodox website explaining baptism saintbarbara.org/faith/sacraments/baptism/baptism.cfm

Perhaps you can explain to me if it’s not the correct position? - I don’t really know too much about orthodoxy.

Also, you can explain to me if I’ve misunderstood you in this response.

Does orthodoxy only teach that baptism is only for the forgiveness of personal sin, or introducing someone to the Church? So it doesn’t make one as this site put it “an inheritor of eternal life” according to orthodox teaching? So it doesn’t dispose an infant to the life of grace? What exactly is the point of baptism and the sacraments, if not to give birth to this life and nurture it in the soul? So can someone inherit eternal life without it already beginning in his soul in this life? The speculation was how about how those deprived of baptism could still attain to this eternal life life without it.

Beatific vision is what Catholics call the perfect union of the soul with God in heaven- The eternal life we hope to enjoy in heaven.

 

[Marybeloved]

Why do you think baptism is required to see God?

Seriously? Are you orthodox- Am I to understand that you are unaware that your church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation? What do you understand by the term salvation? If the Eastern does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, someone please correct me.

 

[Marybeloved]

Amen.

Many Catholics get all bent out of shape when they are accussed of the same thing they accuse others of. The Eastern Orthodox church has been around as long and also claims aposolistic authority so the Catholics can’t pull the we’re the real church we’ve been around the longest argument they make against Protestants.

Sorry, the Catholics base their claim of being the church of Christ on being the Church founded on st. Peter, the Rock. What you’re referring to is apostolic succession, just one of the signs of the church- We don’t deny it to those who have it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“So can someone inherit eternal life without it already beginning in his soul in this life?”

Something to consider isn’t it?

Peace