Agreed.
This is how I find myself looking towards Orthodoxy.
Is the Eastern Orthodox Church correct
- Thread starter CathBoy1
- Start date
- Status
This is how I find myself looking towards Orthodoxy.
H
Hume
Guest
As an atheist that has spent his life looking at Orthodoxy, it’s certainly the branch of Christianity that has the fewest rational issues.
It hasn’t had the love of dogmatization that the west has historically held - which is beneficial when certain teachings don’t hold up with time.
Moreover, it’s certainly more reflective of the ecclesial reality of the early Christian Church. The opinion of the Bishop of Rome beyond the realm of the Latins was certainly less than binding, particularly in Alexandria and Constantinople.
Their relationship to Rome tended to be, roughly, “if we need you, we’ll call you”. This reality is pretty reflective of the early apostles, many of whom had no issue with traveling beyond easy communication range with Peter and out of the common, western Christian histories.
If they felt they had to stay within range of “the boss”, the Indian Churches and Sub-Saharan Churches probably wouldn’t have happened.
Brother, your arguing that I’m arguing against the papacy, I’m not.
I also haven’t argued for some sort of primacy of the Patriarch of Antioch, I did point out that Peter established the church there, as he did in Rome.
Now as for my personal opinion, I don’t see how, and never did understand how Peter established the church in Rome equates to:
Seeing as Peter established the church in Rome, his successors, and only his Roman successors, have supreme jurisdiction over the entire church.
Agreed, and I don’t see where a Roman pontiff has done this either, he didn’t keep the unity between all of these places as you say he should have back before the great schism, because had he there would be no schism, and if the pope was truly to strengthen his brothers and keep them unified then why wouldn’t he have kept them from being separated in the first place, and that’s still to say nothing of the protestant reformation.
While on the topic of unity, yes EO unity looks messy, they seem to have disagreements here and there, getting to my question:
Where is the EO equivalents to the protestant reformation?
Because as messy as their unity is, it hasn’t created anything that even comes close to what the RCC’s supposed unity created, hundreds if not thousands of different denominations under the umbrella of protestant.
I’m sorry as messy as EO unity looks, it sure seems to have ours (RC) beat.
K
Kei
Guest
Heresies have been around for a long time. It is ridiculous to say that because heretics aren’t Catholic that somehow refutes the fact of unity…
From near the beginning there were all sorts of heresies, and these people separate themselves from the Church Universal.
We actually got unity for a moment, near the Council of Ferrara-Florence, but it sadly didn’t last long…
But I get the feeling that you keep thinking that because those with original sin would go to Hell, that there’s no way babies can go to Heaven. The Church has been trying to put forward that there are ways for babies to go to Heaven while still maintaining the dogma…and it is quite simple: the babies may be cleansed of their original sin without sacramental baptism, as put forward in the document I linked to above.
From near the beginning there were all sorts of heresies, and these people separate themselves from the Church Universal.
We actually got unity for a moment, near the Council of Ferrara-Florence, but it sadly didn’t last long…
But I get the feeling that you keep thinking that because those with original sin would go to Hell, that there’s no way babies can go to Heaven. The Church has been trying to put forward that there are ways for babies to go to Heaven while still maintaining the dogma…and it is quite simple: the babies may be cleansed of their original sin without sacramental baptism, as put forward in the document I linked to above.
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
Dug up my copy of The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church by Bl. Fr. Seraphim of Platina. 
It really is worth the read, as a defense of the status of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church. Here are a few quotes to dwell upon:
“We the last Christians are not worthy of the inheritance that they (the Holy Fathers) have left us;…we quote the great Fathers but we do not have their spirit ourselves.”
“Let the test of our continuity with the unbroken Christian tradition of the past be, not only our attempt to be precise in their doctrine, but also our love for the men who handed it down to us.”
From the Preface by Hieroschemamonk Ambrose (formerly Fr. Alexey Young):
Fr. Seraphim titled his essay, “The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church.” He called it this because there are those today who wish to exclude Augustine altogether from the company of the Church Fathers–a novel development, to say the least! Some writers boldly–and without justification (other than their own opinion) call him a “heretic” and unfairly ascribe to him almost every subsequent error of Latin and Protestant Christendom. Fr. Seraphim, on the other hand, wanted nothing more than to give a sense of Orthodox perspective to this issue, explaining to those who seemed not to know that Blessed Augustine does indeed have a proper “place” in the Church–not, to be sure, among the great Fathers, but nonetheless a position of well deserved recognition by other Holy Fathers."
And from St. Augustine’s Liturgical Service (com. June 15) commissioned by St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco and approved by the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR in 1955:
“O holy Hierarch Augustine/though the land of Hippo is silent/we glorify thee as a conquerer of heresy/as a confirmation of the Orthodox faith/as a great praise of monastics/as one who loved to help the poor/as an expounder of the Scriptures/as a warm intercessor for us/Pray that we be granted great mercy.”–Stichera in Tone 8; O Most Glorious Wonder
“With what crowns of adornment shall we crown the Hierarch/the honorable praise of Ambrose the Great/the graceful lamp of all the world/most wondrous shepherd of the Church/the warm consolation of those in sorrow/and the unshaken confirmation of the wavering/the firm opponent of Pelagius/and final uprooter of heresies/who was a vigilant zealot of purity in the Church/crowned by Christ our God/Who hath great mercy.”–Stichera Tone 2; With what crowns of glory
It really is worth the read, as a defense of the status of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church. Here are a few quotes to dwell upon:“We the last Christians are not worthy of the inheritance that they (the Holy Fathers) have left us;…we quote the great Fathers but we do not have their spirit ourselves.”
“Let the test of our continuity with the unbroken Christian tradition of the past be, not only our attempt to be precise in their doctrine, but also our love for the men who handed it down to us.”
From the Preface by Hieroschemamonk Ambrose (formerly Fr. Alexey Young):
Fr. Seraphim titled his essay, “The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church.” He called it this because there are those today who wish to exclude Augustine altogether from the company of the Church Fathers–a novel development, to say the least! Some writers boldly–and without justification (other than their own opinion) call him a “heretic” and unfairly ascribe to him almost every subsequent error of Latin and Protestant Christendom. Fr. Seraphim, on the other hand, wanted nothing more than to give a sense of Orthodox perspective to this issue, explaining to those who seemed not to know that Blessed Augustine does indeed have a proper “place” in the Church–not, to be sure, among the great Fathers, but nonetheless a position of well deserved recognition by other Holy Fathers."
And from St. Augustine’s Liturgical Service (com. June 15) commissioned by St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco and approved by the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR in 1955:
“O holy Hierarch Augustine/though the land of Hippo is silent/we glorify thee as a conquerer of heresy/as a confirmation of the Orthodox faith/as a great praise of monastics/as one who loved to help the poor/as an expounder of the Scriptures/as a warm intercessor for us/Pray that we be granted great mercy.”–Stichera in Tone 8; O Most Glorious Wonder
“With what crowns of adornment shall we crown the Hierarch/the honorable praise of Ambrose the Great/the graceful lamp of all the world/most wondrous shepherd of the Church/the warm consolation of those in sorrow/and the unshaken confirmation of the wavering/the firm opponent of Pelagius/and final uprooter of heresies/who was a vigilant zealot of purity in the Church/crowned by Christ our God/Who hath great mercy.”–Stichera Tone 2; With what crowns of glory
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
cont’d
“Today the whole inhabited earth rejoices and radiantly celebrates thy memory/thou who trampled down heresy and confirmed Orthodoxy/and who hast given drink to the hearts of the faithful by the river of thy words/O servant of the Most Holy Trinity and inextinguishable lamp of the Church/O holy Hierarch Augustine/entreat Christ God that our souls be saved.”–Troparion, Tone 4
Finally, from this poor Christian, impoverished though I am, how can I hope to even come close to the holy life and godly piety that St. Augustine exhibited? Who am I to even consider judging him? He toppled the heresy of Pelagius, reunited the schismatic Donatists to the Church, founded monasteries and churches, wrote spiritual classics of abiding worth to every generation of Christian (especially his Confessions and Soliloquy’s, well read in Russian Monasteries), experienced the highest form of contemplation, and thus I would humbly argue became a “pillar of Orthodoxy” of the Western Orthodox (Catholic) Church. Holy Hierarch Augustine, pray to God for us!
“Today the whole inhabited earth rejoices and radiantly celebrates thy memory/thou who trampled down heresy and confirmed Orthodoxy/and who hast given drink to the hearts of the faithful by the river of thy words/O servant of the Most Holy Trinity and inextinguishable lamp of the Church/O holy Hierarch Augustine/entreat Christ God that our souls be saved.”–Troparion, Tone 4
Finally, from this poor Christian, impoverished though I am, how can I hope to even come close to the holy life and godly piety that St. Augustine exhibited? Who am I to even consider judging him? He toppled the heresy of Pelagius, reunited the schismatic Donatists to the Church, founded monasteries and churches, wrote spiritual classics of abiding worth to every generation of Christian (especially his Confessions and Soliloquy’s, well read in Russian Monasteries), experienced the highest form of contemplation, and thus I would humbly argue became a “pillar of Orthodoxy” of the Western Orthodox (Catholic) Church. Holy Hierarch Augustine, pray to God for us!
But it isn’t so simple.
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.[[5]]
(Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae Conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi lesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam. Quapropter si qui secus ac a Nobis.)
Hence if it is taught Dogmatically that it is a Singular Grace, this could not be applicable to others (unborn babies).
So you see it’s not as simple as you propose, the problem becomes that, that particular document doesn’t and cannot override dogma.
Popes and Saints alike knew as much, and felt as though there was no wiggle room on this and did declare unborn/unbaptized babies went to hell, weather it be the borders of hell (limbo) or otherwise.
That is exactly the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Except the church dogmatically states that the Immaculate Conception was a Singular Grace:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.[[5]]
(Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae Conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi lesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam. Quapropter si qui secus ac a Nobis.)
Hence if it is taught Dogmatically that it is a Singular Grace, this could not be applicable to others (unborn babies).
So you see it’s not as simple as you propose, the problem becomes that, that particular document doesn’t and cannot override dogma.
Popes and Saints alike knew as much, and felt as though there was no wiggle room on this and did declare unborn/unbaptized babies went to hell, weather it be the borders of hell (limbo) or otherwise.
K
Kei
Guest
Incorrect. The immaculate conception is from the first moment of CONCEPTION. Conception is the very first moment of life, not (say) the very last moment of life.
That it could be done by a totally unmerited overriding of Grace was just one suggestion.
But, as I did say earlier, we can’t just decide how we think God should do things, but we are not without hope for these poor babies.
Last edited:
Correct, the Immaculate Conception is from the very first moment of life.
But when the church speaks of the Singular Grace that the Virgin Mary received in the womb, it is literally speaking of one singular instance, when one was freed of original sin in the womb, the RCC’s understanding of original sin demands the Immaculate Conception as a way of reconciling Our Lady’s sinlessness with the RCC’s view of original sin, this is literally the only reason for the declaration of the Immaculate Conception.
Furthermore the document that you keep referring to is just that a document, you literally have to throw away 1000 years of the churches official teaching to accept what it says, and when you get down to it, it doesn’t say much, only that we can hope.
Is it easier to say x+y=z (EO view of original sin & Our Lady’s sinlessness).
Or
A+b=f and fxg+lmnop=y so we have to (much later) also declare z (RCC saying that we are born with the guilt of Adams sin, thus later having to make a new declaration of Our Lady being immaculately conceived to reconcile RCC’s view of original sin w/ Our Lady’s sinlessness).
In my mind both ways declare the Virgin Mary sinless, so why do we (RC’s) have to jump through hoops, hoops that seemingly condemns every unborn/unbaptized baby, to come to the same conclusion?
K
Kei
Guest
No, it goes through the teachings through the centuries. Partially why it is so long!
Saying that we recognize this singular grace that God gave the Virgin Mary to be free from original sin is NOT saying that God cannot act outside the Sacrament of Baptism, but that our Lady was free from original sin and its effects from the first moment of her existence. She was not only singularly graced in the sense that she was conceived without original sin, but also free from its effects (concupiscence).
This is in no way denying that God cannot work outside the Sacrament, for saying that this is what this would mean would be against the teachings of baptism of desire, etc. To say that such declared “exceptions” to sacramental Baptism are the only “exceptions” to the necessity of Baptism seems to be putting a limit that isn’t there. God’s Mercy is beyond what we know, and it is well-known that God is not bound by the Sacraments He has established.
“Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so [death] spread to all as all men sinned in him”
We simply cannot deny that spiritual death has come from original sin…death that is brought to life in Christ! Which is part of the reason we get baptized in the first place, including infants!
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
You have your finger on the pulse, because in the Creed, the term “proceeds” means “has His Source in”… And indeed, in those tumultuous years, that is how the West understood it - That the Holy Spirit had His Origin in the Father and the Son together… This has now been walked back, and the term “proceeds” has been given a new Creedal meaning, which it previously did not have, which is a post-creation meaning, which is an ekonomic meaning, referring now BOTH to Origin and also now MOVEMENT… And they did this by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father (as Origin) and THROUGH the Son (Who sends Him)…
And this last view is very Orthodox indeed, but does change the Creedal meaning of the term “proceeds” from pre-creation Origin to post-creation movement - eg “sends forth” - And the Holy Fathers of the prior Council wisely (and perhaps prophetically) saw this coming, and set forth a ruling with the penalty of an anathema that FORBADE changing the Creed by so much as even one word… And when Papal powers did so, it split the Church in TWO…
Because the Creed is not an online searchable catechism of Christianity - It is the ONE thing that ALL Christians confess at EVERY receiving of the Eucharist… Just because a local Church is having problems with Arians does not give them the right or the responsibility to ALTER the Creed for the Catholic Church qua catholic… Yet this they did and the Schism is the result…
The Latin Church simply has to OWN this error… The Orthodox did not CHANGE the Creed because they were obedient to the Ecumenical Canons… And the Latin Church disobeyed the Ecumenical Canons that were Papally approved - Apparently thinking that the “Chair of Peter” is not bound by the rulings of the Church…
Interesting times…
geo
Agreed, God can do however he pleases, but stating that only throws away what the RCC has taught for 1000 years as infallibly correct.
So either the RCC is infallible in it’s teaching or it is not, they simply want it both ways, but this isn’t how things work, you cannot call teaching no.1 infallibly correct for a 1000 years and then all the sudden release a document that doesn’t work with teaching no.1 and also call it infallibly correct (btw they don’t call the new document infallible) it’s an oxymoron it doesn’t work.
But the way that they word the newer document just kind of dances around the subject, call the traditional teaching harsh all you want, disagree with it even (as I do), but at least back then the church stuck to her guns and were honest about how they felt, and herein lies the problem with the modern church, they are so worried about others feelings that they would rather dance around a hard line subject rather than stand by what they have traditionally taught.
Last edited:
J
Jragzz123
Guest
I have been doing a lot of research on this recently and I’m starting to think that they are…
K
Kei
Guest
No, it doesn’t. It provides a synthesis of Her teachings that can still allow hope for the Beatific Vision. It’s not dancing around it.
As an aside, not all the things we hold to are necessarily infallibly revealed truths of the Faith. There is a hierarchy of truths, and varying levels of submission required of differing statements.
The main points of consideration are that those with mortal sin or original sin would be condemned: the easy way to see infants non-baptized go to Heaven would be for them to be cleansed of original sin by the moment of their death, and seeing as God desires the salvation of all souls, this is a possibility and He may work extraordinarily to make this happen.
I believe I have already answered satisfactorily the charge that, somehow, the Immaculate Conception would undermine this.
Believe it or not, but I have, in the past, been a STAUNCH defender of the baptism of infants and (at least implicitly) the possibility of unbaptized infants not having the beatific Vision on this forum. We should try to understand God’s Justice, not decide what is just for Him. We are very much free to hold to the teaching of limbo. However, I won’t deny the possibility of hope of Heaven for such infants, especially when the Church seems to say that we can have hope for them in God’s Mercy.
Last edited:
But this particular teaching has been infallibly taught by the church, please read as (name removed by moderator) has pointed out.
[(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)](/u/(name removed by moderator))
[(name removed by moderator)](/u/(name removed by moderator))
2d
It is a de fide teaching of the Church that those who die in mortal sin or in original sin alone both go to hell but suffer unequal punishments:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only…immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments". —Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274
“The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”. —Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli , 6 July 1439
When it comes to unbaptized infants, one cannot argue that because they have not committed any actual sin and are therefore “innocent,” they ought to go to heaven. A person is not saved by being “innocent,” but by having sanctifying grace, which requires baptism, whether by water, blood, or desire. Because baptism of blood and desire require an act of the will, infants can only be saved by baptism of water, which is why St. Thomas Aquinas urges mothers to have their children baptized as soon as possible, because for them there is “no other remedy.”
“It is not unjust to punish us for the sin of our first parents, because their punishment consisted in being deprived of a free gift of God…to which they had no strict right and which they willfully forfeited by their act of disobedience” (Baltimore Catechism, q. 257). No individual, even if he has not committed any personal sin, has any entitlement to a friendship with God; it is because of God’s love and mercy that Adam and Eve even had the possibility of the Beatific Vision! It is perfectly in-line with His justice if those who die in a state of original sin, with no personal sin, are still deprived of the Beatific Vision.
At the same time, though an individual who dies in a state of original sin alone cannot enter into heaven, he also cannot be punished for personal, actual sins, because he has committed none. The theory of limbo, a state of natural happiness in which unbaptized infants are deprived of the Beatific Vision but otherwise do not suffer, arose as a consequence of this theological dilemma. It is featured extensively in the writings of many saints, doctors, and fathers through the ages which have the full approval of the Church. While limbo is not explicitly mentioned in the aforementioned councils, it has become part of Catholic tradition and cannot be easily dismissed out of hand.
[(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)](/u/(name removed by moderator))
[(name removed by moderator)](/u/(name removed by moderator))
2d
(cont’d)
The error many are making in this thread is assuming that only dogma is binding, and that anything that is not dogma is up for speculation. This is not the case, as many non-dogmatic teachings are indeed binding, because they belong to other levels of theological certainty. While limbo is not a dogma, as many here have correctly pointed out, it cannot be wholly disregarded as a mere “speculation,” because it is a theological conclusion that has been proposed by countless saints, doctors, and fathers, and thus is sententia ad fidem pertinens (i.e., theologice certa ).
This is why under the heading “The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only," Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei reads: “The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of hell—usually called by the faithful ‘Children’s Limbo’—in which the soul of those dying with only original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire; and this taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one can thereby necessarily postulate a middle state or place involving neither guilt nor penalty between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as Pelagians have invented— false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools ."
—trans. from “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?” by Father Joseph Le Blanc, C.J.M., American Ecclesiastical Review , September 1947, p. 167.
These teachings isn’t something one document can just throw out.
I do not think that God condemns unborn/unbaptized babies to hell, but I do think that has been traditionally the churches official teaching, I am not arguing or putting any limits on God, I am just arguing that the RCC simply might be wrong on this, none of this would be a problem if the church hadn’t claimed infallibility on these matters but they have.
[(name removed by moderator)](/u/(name removed by moderator))
2d
(cont’d)
The error many are making in this thread is assuming that only dogma is binding, and that anything that is not dogma is up for speculation. This is not the case, as many non-dogmatic teachings are indeed binding, because they belong to other levels of theological certainty. While limbo is not a dogma, as many here have correctly pointed out, it cannot be wholly disregarded as a mere “speculation,” because it is a theological conclusion that has been proposed by countless saints, doctors, and fathers, and thus is sententia ad fidem pertinens (i.e., theologice certa ).
This is why under the heading “The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only," Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei reads: “The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of hell—usually called by the faithful ‘Children’s Limbo’—in which the soul of those dying with only original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire; and this taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one can thereby necessarily postulate a middle state or place involving neither guilt nor penalty between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as Pelagians have invented— false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools ."
—trans. from “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?” by Father Joseph Le Blanc, C.J.M., American Ecclesiastical Review , September 1947, p. 167.
These teachings isn’t something one document can just throw out.
I absolutely agree, God can do as he pleases.
I do not think that God condemns unborn/unbaptized babies to hell, but I do think that has been traditionally the churches official teaching, I am not arguing or putting any limits on God, I am just arguing that the RCC simply might be wrong on this, none of this would be a problem if the church hadn’t claimed infallibility on these matters but they have.
My questions kind of just popped into my head whilst reading about the differences in perspective between RCC and EOC, most specifically while reading about the EO view of the Immaculate Conception, which inevitably led to their (EO) perspective on original sin, which I find myself in total agreement with.
Anyways that’s my story, what is making you look towards the east brother?
Anyways that’s my story, what is making you look towards the east brother?
K
Kei
Guest
I have already spoken to how these dogmas are kept while still having the hope of Heaven for the unbaptized infants, multiple times. What is in contention is not these teachings but the inference that, due to them, the unbaptized infants have no chance of Heaven.
I agree! But that’s not what we are doing. We aren’t throwing them out, it’s questioning whether the inference you’re drawing from them are actually logically necessary.
Limbo is technically Hell, but it isn’t like it’s terrible and awful torments like those with actual sin would have.
I think some things are there to consider:
You’ve lost a child and did not baptized him or her. So, you have an emotional attachment to this topic, naturally enough. But we must be careful to not let this emotional attachment bring to you think less rationally/logically, as often may happen, whether that be despair or anything else.
Pray about it, and pray for your baby. You wish you would have baptized him or her. Pray for the child…God is not limited by the Sacraments or time. God desires the salvation of all people. We are not hopeless!
I couldn’t agree more.
And here is where we get down to the nitty and gritty of it all, when pressed one must admit that this is the churches traditional teaching on the matter, that our unborn/unbaptized babies are sent to the borders of hell to be punished with unequal pains.
I’m sorry I just don’t believe that, and if this is the official teaching of the church, what else may she be wrong about?
- Status