Is the Eastern Orthodox Church correct

[Kei]

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 if I haven’t been clear on this, but I have long been a supporter of at least the possibility of Limbo for the unbaptized infants.
Yes, it is what has been the prevailing theological opinion, but that is quite different from saying it is a teaching a Catholic must hold, since it is not a teaching given to the Apostles, but an attempt at a logical conclusion from previously known facts.

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?

If this were the official teaching, the other possibility you seem to be passing up is that you could be the one who is wrong since this is mainly based on what you believe, which is as fallible as anything I decide to believe of my own fancy, and quite a bit more fallible than Church teaching. We can conform our thoughts and beliefs to what has been revealed, or we can have itching ears going after whatever doctrine appeals to us.

But, the question is: is this official teaching? It is a perfectly legitimate theological opinion. However, there is no defined doctrine on the fate of such children.

I personally believe that, naturally, this is the state of such children. However, I also believe that God may act extraordinarily (in His own discretion, perhaps as an answer to prayer) for the salvation of such children.

 

[CathBoy1]

is this official teaching? It is a perfectly legitimate theological opinion.

It sure looks like an official teaching to me:

“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

Taught at the Council of Florence no less.
You don’t even disagree with the teaching yourself:

I personally believe that, naturally, this is the state of such children.

We are on the same page about the churches teaching on this, I don’t understand why you continue to argue otherwise.

I do not personally believe that God sends unborn/unbaptized children to hell (limbo or otherwise).
I personally, completely agree with the EO view on original sin, thus ultimately the fate of the unborn/unbaptized baby.
If this leads me personally, on a path to the EOC (not saying that it will, but that I must pray on this and go where the Holy Spirit leads me), I do not believe that God will condemn me, nor would I think that if I left the RCC for the EOC that God would condemn any RC’s on the sole basis that they were simply RC.
The only reason I would leave the RCC for the EOC is if I believed wholeheartedly that the EOC had the fullness of truth, at this point in my spiritual journey I’m not sure they do, but I’m also not sure the RCC does either.
At this time I believe with all my heart that the fullness of truth lies somewhere between the RCC and the EOC and thus I will stay put and continue to pray for guidance.

Peace be with you kei.

 

[AlNg]

But, the question is: is this official teaching?

It was in the Baltimore catechism. Was it OK for Catholics to dissent from the Baltimore Catechism? Since the teaching on limbo can be changed, and was changed, can other teachings such as the ban on artificial contraception for married couples, or the ban on women priests be changed, even though it is the present teaching?

 

[Kei]

It sure looks like an official teaching to me:

“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

I have already, multiple times, adressed this. I thought it was pretty clear. I really don’t know how much more clear I can make it:
Yes, it is an official teaching that those with original sin or actual mortal sin on their souls would go to Hell. However, this doesn’t mean there isn’t hope for the souls that have not been sacramentally baptized, as God can work outside of the Sacraments so as to clean the soul of an unbaptized infant of original sin prior to or at the moment of death.
In this manner, the “unbaptized” infant would not have original sin on his or her soul, and therefore would not be kept from the Beatific Vision.

You don’t even disagree with the teaching yourself

Perhaps, but I am defending Catholicism here, not just my “version” of it. Also, a very important word is “naturally”. But we believe in a Supernatural God!

I personally, completely agree with the EO view on original sin, thus ultimately the fate of the unborn/unbaptized baby.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this, but if it is that original sin is not sin/spiritual death but a physical death only, then that seems to be a huge problem in terms of the Bible and Church teachings.

“Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so [death] spread to all as all men sinned in him”

But a lot of the disagreement, to me, seems like semantics between East and West, but that’s a different topic.

Peace be with you kei.

And with you.

 

[Kei]

It was in the Baltimore catechism. Was it OK for Catholics to dissent from the Baltimore Catechism? Since the teaching on limbo can be changed, and was changed, can other teachings such as the ban on artificial contraception for married couples, or the ban on women priests be changed, even though it is the present teaching?

Thank you for the thoughtful question. Though, I would say that it is less the teaching on purgatory changed (as we are still very much allowed to hold it) but rather the attitude changed in that we can hope for unbaptized children since God can work outside the Sacraments.
Here is what the Baltimore Catechism says:
“Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.”
Note that the idea that they will go to some place similar to limbo is called a “common idea”. I suppose, then, that the concern here would be that it says they cannot enter Heaven. This is because it affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, the questions continue and it affirms that there are three types of baptism: of blood, of water, and of desire.
It is not so much that this is in question, but rather the hope we can have in the fact that God is not bound by the Sacraments. This is the simple way of facts that we have; yet we cannot discount the supernatural actions and desire of God for all men to be saved.

I do not think it is being claimed that babies would normally go to Heaven regardless of their baptism, but rather the hope we have that God is not bound by the Sacraments leads us to have hope of unbaptized infants attaining the Beatific Vision.

But, as far as I know, a catechism isn’t official Church teaching but is supposed to teach Church teaching. Hence, a Catechism may not be as specific and detail-oriented as the things it seeks to summarize.
Hence, a Catechism could be changed or may even be in error (though if it were, one would hope it would be corrected as soon as this is noticed).

Present teaching can be changed depending upon what is meant by “present teaching”. That which is infallibly defined and believed cannot be changed (outside of the natural development like a calf growing to an adult cow, but (as I already said) not like a cow becoming a fish). However, that which is merely common theological opinion can be changed over time. This gets into the level of submission due to various teachings. You can read more on that here (note it is from 2013):

How to Weigh Church Teachings | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[CathBoy1]

I am not quite sure what you mean by this, but if it is that original sin is not sin/spiritual death but a physical death only, then that seems to be a huge problem in terms of the Bible and Church teachings.

What the EO teach according to OCA:
“Concerning the original—or “first”—sin, that is commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.”

Or put another way, man is born personally sinless, yet inherits the consequence of original sin, chiefly death and an inclination towards sin.

 

[Kei]

Or put another way, man is born personally sinless, yet inherits the consequence of original sin, chiefly death and an inclination towards sin.

Yes, and this confuses me as it seems very much what we teach…from what I grasp, we teach that original sin is different from actual sin, and through it we are born dead spiritually and will die physically. I guess it is the use of the term “guilt”? Yet when we say one is guilty of original sin, we mean it in a much different way than one guilty of actual sin. Ah well. I will pray for you. Please pray for me.

 

[CathBoy1]

Hello (name removed by moderator) and welcome, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut here.

As for the question of is the EOC correct or not, I suppose I’m working through my own spiritual journey and in that sense I guess that’s up for me to decide, but this thread does seem to be helping and it has been insightful.

 

[CathBoy1]

Yes, and this confuses me as it seems very much what we teach…from what I grasp, we teach that original sin is different from actual sin, and through it we are born dead spiritually and will die physically. I guess it is the use of the term “guilt”? Yet when we say one is guilty of original sin, we mean it in a much different way than one guilty of actual sin. Ah well. I will pray for you. Please pray for me.

Yes the sticking point is guilt, if we inherit the guilt of the sin and then a unborn or unbaptized baby or person with no personal sin dies, they are subject to that guilt ( deprived of the beatific vision), whereas in EO no guilt is inherited, thus if a unborn or unbaptized baby or person with no personal sin dies, they would not be subject to any guilt (not deprived or the beatific vision).

I absolutely will, and please do, peace brother

 

[dochawk]

I think Saint Augustine got this wrong.

Augustine rather clearly didn’t see the door as closed on that, or that his work was complete, on that issue.

He left a note in the margin (“limbus”) to the effect of, “but what about infants?”

This note in the limbus is the source of the notion of “Limbo” (which itself is not Catholic doctrine, in spite have been being taught . . . [I think it even worked its way into the Catechism ]).

Do you have some citations that say Spaniards were using a modified version of the Creed prior to the filioque being approved?

If you do the research on this, from western sources, you find the popes spending a century or so fighting this addition prior to adopting it. (No, I don’t have sources at hand, but I think even wikipedia will have this much, and I would expect attribution on something this basic).

The initial contest (like so many things) was fighting Arianism.

Let me ask you this, in your opinion does the Patriarch of Antioch exhibit the kind of unity in the East as the first among equals should? F

I don’t have citations at hand, but there are papal writings about the three Petrine sees actually being one.

It is Rome being Peter’s final see that leads to its preeminence (well, at least in western thinking; the Orthodox generally assert that it comes from the dual martyrdoms of SS Peter & Paul)

Seeing as Peter established the church in Rome,

I’ve never seen an actual claim that the Church wasn’t already in Rome by the time of Peter’s arrival. But, being Peter, he would be the natural leader . . .

Seeing as Peter established the church in Rome, his successors, and only his Roman successors, have supreme jurisdiction over the entire church.

This just doesn’t follow–aside from his not having brought the church to Rome in the first place, it’s fairly certain that he did establish churches before and between themes he settled down. (and for that matter, clear and undisputed leader, whether or not founding the Church in Rome, neither implies "supreme jurisdiction [Paul’s correction of Peter would seem to contradict “supreme” in the twenty-first century meaning of the word, for example], nor does anything in it imply that his full authority passed to his successors. You really have to go much farther to reach these conclusions; the basis is not that simplistic)

 

[CathBoy1]

CathBoy1:

Seeing as Peter established the church in Rome,

I’ve never seen an actual claim that the Church wasn’t already in Rome by the time of Peter’s arrival. But, being Peter, he would be the natural leader . . .

Seeing as Peter established the church in Rome, his successors, and only his Roman successors, have supreme jurisdiction over the entire church.

This just doesn’t follow–aside from his not having brought the church to Rome in the first place, it’s fairly certain that he did establish churches before and between themes he settled down. (and for that matter, clear and undisputed leader, whether or not founding the Church in Rome, neither implies "supreme jurisdiction [Paul’s correction of Peter would seem to contradict “supreme” in the twenty-first century meaning of the word, for example], nor does anything in it imply that his full authority passed to his successors. You really have to go much farther to reach these conclusions; the basis is not that simplistic)

Thanks for the correction, yes I agree that Peter did not establish the church in Rome, just that he was the leader of the church in Rome (this is what I meant, but I admit I have a hard time articulating what I mean to say a lot of times)

To be clear I wasn’t arguing, for the supremacy of Peters Roman successors, I personally don’t see how, seeing that Peter died as the Bishop of Rome that supremacy should be passed on down to every succeeding Bishop of Rome, i’m not even convinced that Peter had total supremacy over the entire church, as you rightly point out Paul’s correction of Peter.

As an aside I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread, I have read and enjoyed a lot of your (name removed by moderator)ut on other threads in the Eastern Catholic section of CAF, thanks brother.

 

[dochawk]

thank you.

Leaving aside the modern claims of the extent of Papal authority, it is clear, however, that
a) the other Apostles themselves did indeed defer to Peter and his leadership, and
b) the early church did indeed accept Roman primacy, although at times struggling it.

This sticking point, particularly in terms of relation between RC and EO, is what primacy means, and the extent of the jurisdiction or authority of the Bishop of Rome outside his own archdiocese.

There was a general acceptance that disputes between bishops and sometimes lower clergy could be submitted to Rome.

Council results were sent to Rome for approval.

I believe there were cases of Rome ejecting corrupt/impious bishops from their sees–but then again, so did St. John Chrysotum (he actually went on an extend tour doing this again and again. My memory is fuzzy, though, as to whether this was before or after he became the Patriarch of Constantinople)

And in theological matters, Rome was, at some level, the last word. As I understand the discussions I’ve read, it was more in saying “no” (and thus closing matters), than in determining course. (and some Orthodox will assert that it was Roe’s conservatism, rather than Petrine ministry, that was the reason for this)

 

[steve-b]

Oh I did open the link to the argument that you provided, it doesn’t seem to hold seeing as the Council Of Ephesus was held after the Council Of Constantinople I, Thereby it would seem that Ephesus confirms Constantinople I rather than condemning it.
As I’ve said before there’s just no satisfactory answer to this question.
Truth be told I believe the truth of the church lies somewhere between East and West, yet here we are.

The filioque doesn’t contradict the creed it explains further what the creed means. Ecumenical councils can do that.

 

[CathBoy1]

I really don’t disagree much with what you’ve said here.

I am interested in your opinion on how Rome came to the conclusion that, since Peter died as the bishop of Rome, we are to hand every succeeding Roman bishop the authority and supremacy of the entire church?

 

[CathBoy1]

The filioque doesn’t contradict the creed it explains further what the creed means. Ecumenical councils can do that.

But as I’ve stated elsewhere on this thread, the filioque was (originally) introduced in Spain (not a ecumenical council) and spread throughout the church from there, and at that time the church’s official stance (Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus) was anyone who introduced anything to the creed let him be anathema, and only later did a council convey and “officially” insert the filioque, when truth be told they only should’ve convened to affirm the earlier council teaching, not to reward those dissenting from it.

 

[Kei]

I agree to a degree.
What I refer to by “hope” is an extraordinary act of God, beyond what we are normally expecting, on account of His Mercy and Desire for the salvation of all people. Isaiah/Isaias, for instance, was cleansed of his sins in a rather spectacular way, as was St John the Baptist (presumedly, in the Visitation).
We should by no means expect such, but (it would seem to me) can hope for it.

I am pretty sure there has been some theological speculation since before the 1800s, and since you seem to agree with using Ott as an authority, I will quote him:

Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. [Denzinger] 712. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book 2, Section 2, § 25

 

[steve-b]

George720:

We do not Baptize freshly born babies, but 40 day old (or more) babies…

I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic and I admit that’s one thing I do not like - delaying Baptism for 40 days. I was baptized 14+ days after I was born. St. Padre Pio was baptized the day he was born, and he later said that it was one of the greatest (or the greatest - don’t remember exactly) grace(s) that God gave him.

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori said that a baby should be baptized within 8 days. In the OT, a boy had to be circumcised on the eighth day or be cut off from the Hebrew people.

In addition

Just a few thoughts

For non Catholics reading this, Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day. In the Rosary, we pray in the Joyful mysteries, we have the following 5 Joyful mysteries
1, annunciation, Angel Gabriel announces to Mary she will be the mother of God, and she accepts
2. While pregnant Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth, who is also pregnant, with John who will be the baptizer
3. The birth of Our lord
4. Presentation of Jesus in the temple. Jesus is circumcised on the 40th day
5. Jesus @ 12 yrs old is found preaching and teaching in the temple. The age of bar mitzvah & in extension, 12 yrs old is when the sacrament of confirmation in the Latin rite, is administered.

Bottom line then, for those who aren’t Catholic, and reading this thread, This ultimately represents 2 sacraments.

Infants, ASAP, Baptisn which replaces circumcision Col 2:11-12 RSVCE - In him also you were circumcised with a - Bible Gateway AND

AND at 12 yrs old

Jews go through Bar Mitzvah, Catholics in the Latin rite, receive the sacrament of confirmation Catholic Answers

In confirmation, One makes a personal confirmation of their faith.

Margaret_Ann:

Baptism is to the NT what circumcision was to the OT, since it is the gateway to the other sacraments. An unbaptized person cannot be chrismated, nor receive the Eucharist etc.

Margaret_Ann:

My nieces are RC but both of them were baptized almost 2-3 months after they were born. I was a nervous wreck until they were baptized. I think the RCC should go back to their traditional practice of baptism as soon as possible after birth.

As we know, It’s the parents that need to take this seriously. After all, the babies can’t make any decision for themselves. A baby can be baptized as soon as they are delivered. I personally was baptized as soon as my parents could get me to a priest after I was born.

Margaret_Ann:

I think that all babies should be baptized immediately or as soon as possible after birth. No baby should be delayed in having the Divine Life of God imparted to them in Baptism.

That’s my .05 for now.

totally agree

 

[Kei]

Yes the sticking point is guilt, if we inherit the guilt of the sin and then a unborn or unbaptized baby or person with no personal sin dies, they are subject to that guilt ( deprived of the beatific vision), whereas in EO no guilt is inherited, thus if a unborn or unbaptized baby or person with no personal sin dies, they would not be subject to any guilt (not deprived or the beatific vision).

I don’t think I follow the logic chain there…regardless of whether you call it guilt or not, if someone is supernaturally dead, how can they have supernatural life?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I just PMed you.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The filioque doesn’t contradict the creed it explains further what the creed means. Ecumenical councils can do that.

But as I’ve stated elsewhere on this thread, the filioque was (originally) introduced in Spain (not a ecumenical council) and
[snip for space]

Since you didn’t read the link I provided, I’ll highlight the important sections

“Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.”

And

At the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), it was changed, and the council ruled that the words “and the Son” had been validly added to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it.

Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople. This is significant because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Eastern Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

Ephesus’s prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated,

Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city–the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. ( Definition of the Faith ).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add “ filioque ” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession.

Do you understand what is being said here?