Maronite rite, communion with Rome and Infant baptism

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi All!

I had a truncated conversation about a month ago where the topic of what happens to children who die outside of sacramental baptism, eg: the very young, came up. One of the Maronites at our prayer group, a deacon, made a comment about “their Angels” in heaven and thinking they were all definitely in heaven ; but this is (at least superficially) the opposite of what I thought was taught at Florence, in session 6, July 6, 1439; eg: as what would normally happen in such a case: –

The document can be found on the Catholic Site, the EWTN network library, Here:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3
(The Greek original text is shown at the end of this post, for those who can read it.)

So, I was wondering – since the conversation was truncated; is this idea the deacon suggested of infants having angels in heaven somehow guaranteeing salvation a teaching or tradition unique to the Maronite Rite / Eastern Theology ? ( I tried to e-mail the Deacon, but he just said to ask here on CAF – so I am… ).

My second question was, that since I have never seen the Maronite rite of Baptism, do Maronites have the same exorcisms/exudations which are found in the Latin rites.
eg: The rejection of Satan on behalf of the infant, etc. I ask because Augustine cited exorcisms as proof of the Tradition that Original sin was considered a ‘universal’ teaching in all the churches, and I wanted to make sure of whether this actually applies to Maronites or not; that they do believe the devil can have some power even over infants.

I had been under the impression that the Maronites entered full communion with the Pope / founded a college in Rome shortly after the council of Florence’s decrees , eg: after the statements of the basis of union with the Eastern churches were published; so that would be somewhere around 1440 to 1490… Is this correct? And if so – would Florence’s decrees have been mandatory or optional for Maronites to accept when entering communion ?

I tried looking up several of the Early Church Father’s of the East to see if any of them spoke of any infants, or children who were both not baptized – and who were not martyrs (killed for Christ) to see if there was a tradition or anything which might explain what the deacon was expressing; but I found none; only some quotes which were ambiguous, like from Gregory of Nyssa : De infantibus praemature abreptis libellum , but he said something basically like: “The premature death of newborn infants does not provide a basis for the presupposition that they will suffer torments or that they will be in the same state as those who have been purified in this life by all the virtues”. And Gregory of Nazianzus said something equally discouraging: "The one who does not deserve punishment is not thereby worthy of praise, and the one who does not deserve praise is not thereby deserving of punishment” – but I am unable to find anything else on the topic from the East (My Patristic sources are very limited.) So – I really couldn’t find anything about Angels…

What other sources/patristic fathers from the East might I look at to get a more complete understanding of what the Eastern Maronite traditions would have historically seen as acceptable theology/teaching ?

I double checked the CCC, and basically it merely confirmed my understanding that we are Hoping for these children, but that as far as teaching goes, we have absolutely no examples of a child going to heaven outside sacramental baptism; just plain hope.

CCC#1261 – “…As regards children who have died without [eg: sacramental water] baptism [eg: and setting aside other means, such as martyrdom], Jesus tenderness toward children which caused him to say:‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent the little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

CCC#1257 – “…The church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude… God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”

CCC#403 – "…and their [men’s] inclination toward evil can not be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul” (291: Council of Trent DS1512 ) Because of this certainty of faith, the church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin. (292: Council of Trent DS1514)

Session 6, Florence, July 6, 1439:
But 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

Psalm 51:7
Behold, I was born in guilt,
in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalm 58:3-5.
The wicked have been corrupt since birth;
liars from the womb, they have gone astray.

etc.​

Is there anything that I have overlooked in the traditional Maronite perspective on this subject ?

---

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=21511&d=1424717778

 

[Vico]

,

I tried looking up several of the Early Church Father’s of the East to see if any of them spoke of any infants, or children who were both not baptized – and who were not martyrs (killed for Christ) to see if there was a tradition or anything which might explain what the deacon was expressing; but I found none;…

What other sources/patristic fathers from the East might I look at to get a more complete understanding of what the Eastern Maronite traditions would have historically seen as acceptable theology historically ?

I double checked the CCC, and basically it merely confirmed my understanding that we are Hoping for these children, but that as far as teaching goes, we are to understand that normatively – they are defined as not going to heaven, and it must be some kind of exception (a hope) that some of them do go to heaven…

St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57)

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”

books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA581&lpg=PA581&dq=ancient+christian+baptismal+instructions&source=bl&ots=BsaK0-HWzv&sig=qzr0ByV4c89cbpTuO1pU7fxjdhI&hl=en&ei=fii_TtbJDM-1tge_75C8Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=ancient%20christian%20baptismal%20instructions&f=falseMentioned in 3:6: 1 remission of sins
2 sanctification
3 justice
4 filial adoption
5 inheritance
6 brothers of Christ
7 members of Christ
8 dwelling places for the Holy Spirit

“You are called faithful both because you believe in God and have as a trust from him justificaton, sanctity, purity of soul, filial adoption, and the kingdom of heaven.”
Two more mentioned in 12:6: 9 purity of soul
10 kingdom of heaven

 

[frizzgrig]

Regarding infants who die before being baptized:

We know God has revealed through sacred scripture the assured path to salvation is through baptism. Scripture does not say that is the only way. God is infinite in all things, especially mercy.

The fact is we don’t know what happens to anyone who dies without the benefit of baptism. This includes infants. God is free to exercise His mercy as He sees fit.

My view: God does not create just to damn. Man damns himself through his choices, an infant has no capacity to make choices that would damn. They lack knowledge of such things.

It is also a nice thought that they are “angels in heaven” but angels are an entirely different species than humans. Angels are pure spirit, while humans are body and spirit. This is one part of why we believe in the resurrection of the body, not that our spirit just goes to heaven.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57)

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
​

OK. Thank you.

The last time I spoke to Abouna about Chrysostom, he laughed and said that whenever the ‘Latins’ talk about the East, they only go as far as Chrysostom. But, then he made a comment that made me wonder if Chrysostom is more of West compared to Jerusalem, etc. in Maronite eyes… Oh, well – I suppose it’s sort of ironic that I missed Chrysostom’s quote when I did a search.

Where Chrysostom says “sinless”, I think that is probably a translation issue; for he still says separately that Baptism allows inheritance… So I think sinless only means personal sin, in the same way as CCC 403 “who have not committed personal sin.”

Do you happen to know of any saying from Chrysostom about unbaptized infants, or perhaps little children too young to desire anything on their own, having angels speaking for them in heaven, or having ‘their’ angels in heaven ?

Or did Chrysostom ever talk about the converse side of the issue – the potential ability of devils to possess children, or the exposure to the devil from negligent parents (both, not just one) through their evil which makes children unclean, or the converse, the exorcisms in baptism which cast all that out ?

1Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean,​

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The fact is we don’t know what happens to anyone who dies without the benefit of baptism. This includes infants. God is free to exercise His mercy as He sees fit.

My view: God does not create just to damn. Man damns himself through his choices, an infant has no capacity to make choices that would damn. They lack knowledge of such things.

I want to be sure to qualify a few things; First off, I don’t know in what way the deacon meant the words “Their Angels in heaven”, the conversation got cut off. But, I had brought up the idea of infants not having the ability to make choices – which is precisely why they can not have baptism of desire. It was in connection to my comment that the idea of “their Angels in heaven…” was brought up.

It’s not my purpose, here, in this thread – to tell anyone that children must be punished in fire because they did not make a choice. In Fact, Florence even explicitly says that the punishment is different for differing people; eg: according to their works.

But is partially my purpose, here, to point out – that God sends perfectly sinless children into this world in the first place, where they suffer before they have done anything good or evil ; so that it is not possible to say that God would not allow infants to suffer at all. For – He has already demonstrated that he will allow it at least once.

There is a difference between actively damning someone, and justice, and happenstance of circumstances. But as a Catholic, I am required to believe in Dogma – and the statement of Florence is Dogma; so that I think, somehow, it must be possible for those who die in original sin ALONE – (age is not the question here) – to be excluded from Heaven and sent to sheol. ( Gehenna and fire is a separate question. )

If God’s mercy is such that exclusion could never happen, ever – then the statement in Florence would be false. For it is not even possible that someone who dies in Original sin ALONE could be excluded from heaven, and sent to sheol (hell).

Baptism is the association and plunging of a person into Christ, Jesus. It is not possible, that someone can even be with Jesus without being baptized in some sense of the word.
In my mind, There is a clear difference between sacramental baptism, and other forms – but none the less – if Jesus accepts an infant into his loving arms, even outside the sacrament – they are by definition, baptized by him at that moment outside the sacrament.

While on Earth, theologans and the church have identified three forms of Baptism; Baptism by blood, Baptism by water, and Baptism by desire ; but that alone does not exclude that there could be a baptism by unilateral divine intervention.

What I am looking for, esp. in the Maronite rite / tradition, is any references to even a single infant outside of baptism going to heaven. Or, failing that – arguments based on Angels in heaven, which would increase the hope that at least some infants go to heaven before the sacrament, or failing that – arguments regarding the possession of children by the devil, and the exorcisms historically noted; which would explain do what degree, when, or how often a child is free from interference by the devil.

It’s a matter of getting a more complete picture of what the Catholic church has seen through the eyes of her various saints, the various churches East and West.

 

[Vico]

OK. Thank you.

The last time I spoke to Abouna about Chrysostom, he laughed and said that whenever the ‘Latins’ talk about the East, they only go as far as Chrysostom. But, then he made a comment that made me wonder if Chrysostom is more of West compared to Jerusalem, etc. in Maronite eyes… Oh, well – I suppose it’s sort of ironic that I missed Chrysostom’s quote when I did a search.

Where Chrysostom says “sinless”, I think that is probably a translation issue; for he still says separately that Baptism allows inheritance… So I think sinless only means personal sin, in the same way as CCC 403 “who have not committed personal sin.”

Do you happen to know of any saying from Chrysostom about unbaptized infants, or perhaps little children too young to desire anything on their own, having angels speaking for them in heaven, or having ‘their’ angels in heaven ?

Or did Chrysostom ever talk about the converse side of the issue – the potential ability of devils to possess children, or the exposure to the devil from negligent parents (both, not just one) through their evil which makes children unclean, or the converse, the exorcisms in baptism which cast all that out ?

1Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean,

Well, Maronites may feel less of a personal connection with the Saints from Constantinople, but I don’t know.

Yes, sinless means personal sin. What results from the Fall are consequences which necessitate baptism.

St. Gregory Nanzianzen, Oration 40:Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and of how little faith! Why, Anna even before Samuel was born 1 Samuel 1:10 promised him to God, and after his birth consecrated him at once, and brought him up in the priestly habit, not fearing anything in human nature, but trusting in God. You have no need of amulets or incantations, with which the Devil also comes in, stealing worship from God for himself in the minds of vainer men. Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Guard.

 

[Maronita]

I do not know if you’re still checking out the forum but in case you are I would suggest writing to the local Maronite Bishop for the area you live in. Generally if you have access to the Roman Catholic Directory there should be a section of it listing the contact information for the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that has churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese. They are usually listed in them (if your in the U.S.) because the IRS will only consider a Catholic entity tax exempt if it is listed in the Catholic Directory (even a private Catholic entity must be listed in the Catholic Directory).

I am technically a Roman Catholic that has embraced the Maronite Catholic tradition since Advent 2011 and consider myself a Maronite Catholic. I would suggest that just MAYBE the deacon was trying to express his belief that they would go to heaven because salvation can come about through baptism-of-desire and that it might be thought that these innocent babies would desire baptism.

Within the Maronite Church they actually baptise and confirm theirs infants they do NOT separate them UNLESS one parent is Roman Catholic and one parent Maronite Catholic (and then ONLY IF the parents choose to keep them separate) but if both parents are Maronite the infants automatically receive both sacraments together per their tradition.

 

[pacloc]

I cannot answer for the Maronite faith, but if they follow the eastern train of thought from Irenaeus to Maximus the confessor, I could share a little of what I have been learning. The idea of baptism in order to cleanse is not really what is believed, but rather to enter into the process of theosis. In a lot of the greek father’s minds it seems that Jesus Christ bound the binder of man, Satan and death, with His death on the cross and resurrection. So in their mind, all of mankind forward and backward are once again spotless, like Adam just by the act of Jesus Christ. The actual mystery that is preached beyond this restoration is the unity with God that is now extended to any that will accept. So from as early as we recognize what it is that God has done and what He is offering, we are called to be baptized (dying to our old way of life, and being born into a new creation). So from the moment we are baptized, we begin a process of death to “the passions” of the world and a life to the “impassibility” of God through training aided by God’s graces. It is only fitting that the end of this process is a sharing in the ultimate test of death to this world with Christ Jesus in our bodily death. This means that our entire life is a baptism, that ends in death of a willing son of God. Our death is a sacrifice, not the penalty of sin, if we are truly sons of God.

So to answer the question, I would say that the offspring of sons of God are promised a sharing with God because the offspring are the product of 2 spotless sons of God. The only reason they even need baptism themselves is that it is the human way of representing death to the inherited choice to follow after the “passions” of the world and to receive the graces from God to endure and grow. If they never had the opportunity to follow after the passions of the world, their death surely allows them a share in the death to the passions.

The offspring of non believers is not as clear to me, but you could use the same logic that since Christ has made sharing in unity with God available to all man completely by Himself, that any human that dies to the “passions” of the world is free of them and can follow unattached into God’s presence.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I do not know if you’re still checking out the forum but in case you are I would suggest writing to the local Maronite Bishop

Thanks Maronita.
I haven’t had a whole lot of success writing bishops in the past, although I haven’t tried the maronite one yet.

The deacon and I spoke again, after he read through the posts here; and his response to me was, “Thank you for looking into all that, I am thinking that all we can do is hope for them.” So , I think it was merely a misunderstanding of a personal hope that he over-stated similar to what you state below:

I am technically a Roman Catholic that has embraced the Maronite Catholic tradition since Advent 2011 and consider myself a Maronite Catholic. I would suggest that just MAYBE the deacon was trying to express his belief that they would go to heaven because salvation can come about through baptism-of-desire and that it might be thought that these innocent babies would desire baptism.

Without the use of reason, the ability to desire is questionable. That was one of the issues I was trying to express when we had the original conversation.

I did not get the chance to finish that part of the conversation, so do not take this as things I said to the deacon, but I will outline it here for you:

An infant that is born, can desire the breast, but we know it’s pure “suck” instinct at first ; for anything such as fingers and the like will automatically cause the same response.

Give them a short amount of time to grow, though, and they begin to make associations and can become attached to the breast and they know what the sensation of hunger means – and they like it so much that even if they have become full, and another child is given to suck on a breast; that sometimes the first child will see the second and become angry, and jealous. This has been seen in wet nurses where a starving child is given to a mother who is lactating to help bring it back, eg: in third world countries.

It is not that such signs imply that the child who becomes upset is in mortal sin, but it is none the less a sin (a lack of something good, a privation) based on ignorance that a child can be jealous, or even try to struggle to reach, overpower, and take away what the other child desperately needs; it’s objectively a vice and weakness.

It’s not something that is condemned on the basis of knowledge. We might still say, that although the child objectively is doing something that is sinful – they are none the less innocent of any guilt in the matter. ( Jesus makes a similar point to adult Pharisees, that if they were blind – they would not be guilty of sin, but since you say “we see” therefore your sin remains, or again, and probably more clearly stated: John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. )

Ignorance does not change that something is or is not a sin; it merely excuses it. Innocence does not imply sin-lessness.

To sum up: Desire takes a learning process, or some semblance of reason ; and desire can also cause things which are objectively sinful. It’s not clear what they would desire, or why.

So – back to the prayer meeting conversion:
What was going on is that we have a young lady who works at a gynecological clinic, where although the original clinic was pro-life, none the less – for financial reasons they were forced, after the founders death, to begin hiring abortion providing doctors as well.

This placed one of the ladies at our prayer group in a bit of a moral quandry, for she works at the clinic, and doesn’t really have the skills (she thinks) to go elsewhere as a secretarial type of person. Yet they serve patients who order abortions rather often.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

– continued –

The infants in question, then, are pre brith – and many of them have incomplete brain development.

To tell a young secretary like this, that there is an “assurance” of salvation because the infants are pure, or angels, seems like a problem – and so is the opposite; for justifications or rationalizations can arise that are in fact perverted; eg: If a child is going to be born into an unwanted family, and have a very large chance of going to Hell because both parents are atheists, and more perhaps into drugs and violent – then, why struggle for a child who if they die – they go to heaven automatically ? Why defend their lives at your own risk ?

It would be much like the reasoning of any saint (Paul) who was “pure” at near the end of his life, for it was not a sin for him to say: “I do not know what to choose, for to die is gain.”

The other side of the argument, that they should always go to “hell” is also problematic. For that places the young lady’s conscience in a hard place that she can perhaps do nothing about. It is for this reason, that the Deacon was – I think – speaking in a way which implied universal salvation ; he didn’t want to bruise her conscience.

My position was that it is the fault of the parents, but that there is no guarantee of salvation for the child, just hope. We have good reason to hope, but no assurance;
That, of course met with disdain from several people at the meeting,who began immediately associating what I said with punishments in hell – which I said nothing of.

All I know is that if a child dies because of Christ (Martyrdom) then, for sure they go to heaven; Cf. Non-christian infants, The holy innocents, are called saints.

Hence, I thought that perhaps if the young lady did something small that showed she was for Christ, or say something like “for Christ, there is always adoption.” – then at least if they choose to abort, they would be choosing to do so against Christ; I don’t know the standard required for Martyrdom, but I don’t think it need be very high ; nor do I know the legal ramifications, or how it would be accomplished in a legal and tactful way, but such a thing does not seem impossible – although it may be in our current legal climate.

Please note:
I don’t intend to bring this up at the meeting, again, because although I mentioned it – it was a friction point, and I don’t think it really helped the young lady.

If you know a Maronite bishop, feel free to speak about any of this with him.

Within the Maronite Church they actually baptise and confirm theirs infants they do NOT separate them UNLESS one parent is Roman Catholic and one parent…

That (in many ways) makes more sense to me, that the infant should receive the Holy spirit in full force, or the Eucharist (at least under the species of wine) as they are able.

The parable about the man who had the devil cast out, and then return – with 7x the devils worse than the first, is based on the very fact that to not be filled with the presence of God is to allow empty space, even if clean, for the devil to re-enter a person who’s soul is unguarded.

My understanding of the Latin rite position regarding holding off on communion and confirmation, is simply that the separation is to prevent abuse such as spitting out for children who don’t know any better. That is why they wait until the age of reason; but a child who shows exceptional desire at an earlier age, or the beginnings of understandings, can in fact receive earlier; although I don’t recall the exact way those cases are judged.

I would be more comfortable if they were receiving communion ; although I know that after an exorcism, in a baptism, the presence of God is available to the child even without communion. And I also know that St. Paul said, “Once I was alive outside the Law”, which is because – I think – as a child under 12, he had not had a Barmitzvah ( anachronistic term, but say – the inquiry with the priests in the temple around age 13, and note: Jesus did it at 12. ) eg: Paul was not responsible for the law yet. So his father and mother carried the responsibility for his sins / protecting him from sins. Hence, Paul’s father and mother must have been like Joseph (Blameless before the Law) and Mary / or Elizabeth. These are simply people in whom there was no fault whatsoever before the law according to scripture.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I cannot answer for the Maronite faith, but if they follow the eastern train of thought from Irenaeus to Maximus the confessor, I could share a little of what I have been learning. The idea of baptism in order to cleanse is not really what is believed, but rather to enter into the process of theosis.

Theosis was mentioned by Abouna last week, in fact.

In a lot of the greek father’s minds it seems that Jesus Christ bound the binder of man, Satan and death, with His death on the cross and resurrection.

The binder of man, reflects though, on the idea of infants being held captive under [the power of] sin.

So in their mind, all of mankind forward and backward are once again spotless, like Adam just by the act of Jesus Christ.

So, how do you deal with the psalm that says that the wicked go astray from the womb, telling lies ? see earlier posts. For, there are still wicked men in the world.

The actual mystery that is preached beyond this restoration is the unity with God that is now extended to any that will accept. So from as early as we recognize what it is that God has done and what He is offering, we are called to be baptized (dying to our old way of life, and being born into a new creation). So from the moment we are baptized, we begin a process of death to “the passions” of the world and a life to the “impassibility” of God through training aided by God’s graces.

OK. Although baptism allows for that to begin before it is possible to recognize anything in a child.

It is only fitting that the end of this process is a sharing in the ultimate test of death to this world with Christ Jesus in our bodily death. This means that our entire life is a baptism, that ends in death of a willing son of God. Our death is a sacrifice, not the penalty of sin, if we are truly sons of God.

Hmm. What then of 1Corinthians 15:51-52

So to answer the question, I would say that the offspring of sons of God are promised a sharing with God because the offspring are the product of 2 spotless sons of God. The only reason they even need baptism themselves is that it is the human way of representing death to the inherited choice to follow after the “passions” of the world and to receive the graces from God to endure and grow. If they never had the opportunity to follow after the passions of the world, their death surely allows them a share in the death to the passions.

I will need to think about that for a while, it has some obscurities in it and I am not sure what to make of it ; but Thank you for sharing.

The offspring of non believers is not as clear to me, but you could use the same logic that since Christ has made sharing in unity with God available to all man completely by Himself, that any human that dies to the “passions” of the world is free of them and can follow unattached into God’s presence.

That would trouble me. Paul says that if it were not for one spouse sanctifying the other, eg: having at least ONE believer – that the children would be unclean.

So, Even if Jesus’ death put us back in the state of Adam (and I don’t believe that’s what we’re like – but just hypothetically) then it still follows that if the parents should both sin (FALL) that the child is likewise affected.

The converse is not true, salvation of parents does not guarantee salvation of child ; adoption does. Though I am not going explain at this point.

However, I see that the salvation of Christ is traced by a genealogy backward through the ages to Adam by natural descent in reverse; But also, that any branch that is not flowed through – is not saved. Anyone outside that tree must become attached to it by adoption.

It’s not clear to me how it is at all possible, for say – A dog, or Cow to be saved; For they are not part of that family tree – eg: Adam was brought all the animals and said “unsuitable” to be a companion; SO if animals who do not sin, are not saved merely because they are not his flesh – what is to be said for a child of both reprobate parents that has become automatically unclean according to Paul?

 

[pacloc]

You are looking at things from a very legalistic view. It is not God’s will that we are unclean, it is us who choose uncleanness, and He has sacrificed so much of Himself to allow us to grow into holiness. The scripture from Corinthians 7:14 needs to be read in context. It is speaking about potentials of unclean and clean and when speaking of children it is not addressing the situation of premature death. We do not read into the text that some magic charm is given to children and spouses of believers, but that the believer will give them lifelong truth and love that will make them potentially clean if they become believers. So the children of unbelievers are unclean in potential because there is no way that they will be raised with the right attitude toward sin and will become unclean. I child that dies before they become unclean cannot be viewed unclean because it would undo the work of Christ.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You are looking at things from a very legalistic view. It is not God’s will that we are unclean, it is us who choose uncleanness, and He has sacrificed so much of Himself to allow us to grow into holiness.

It was not God’s will that Adam and Eve sinned, either. But Adam’s children were still unable to go to heaven until the cross as you yourself admit.

But what you are saying totally overlooks the economy of salvation, and how it is through the flesh union of Jesus as Christ, in the Eucharist which we ENTER into heaven. For, no one can go up to heaven except he who came down; AKA. that which came down gives life to his body and allows it to rise up even to heaven.

It is for this reason, that Jesus repeats, so many times very absolute sayings to the effect that we require the Holy Spirit in Baptism, or the Eucharist, and that if we do not get things things we CAN NOT enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It’s not a matter of legalism, as in punishment for sins – that I’m talking about.
Rather I’m talking about the very nature of what it means that upon the Cross Jesus offered us to become one flesh with him, enlivened by one Spirit, so that by partaking of him in his entirety we may indeed become the “bride of the Lamb” and enter heaven through the veil of his flesh.

It’s for this reason that there will be no more marriages in heaven, for we are all in an exclusive covenant relationship with Christ. ( Matthew 22:29-30 )

Note: you have spoken of us going back to the state of Adam – but it really can not be the same for the rest of us, as we are not born in the holy of holies, and our nakedness in a sacred place is no longer pleasing to God – but we must enter heaven through the FLESH of Jesus Christ who went up to heaven and is hidden from view until he shall come again.

The scripture from Corinthians 7:14 needs to be read in context. It is speaking about potentials of unclean and clean and when speaking of children it is not addressing the situation of premature death. We do not read into the text that some magic charm is given to children and spouses of believers, but that the believer will give them lifelong truth and love that will make them potentially clean if they become believers.

The flesh and blood, water and spirit, all of which comes from our savior are hardly magic charms. They are the elements of marriage (or Covenant), and sacramentum (oath).

The flesh of the risen Lord IS called com-union for because it directly makes available to us his body enlivened by his Spirit – so that we may renew, on a periodic basis or even daily, the intimate union which surpasses sexual intercourse in the effects it has on our flesh and souls. For if marriage upon earth makes the two one flesh, then the Eucharist and baptism does at least that much, and more.

Take your own advice, read Corinthians 7 as a whole, in context. Go all the way back to Corinthians 6 where Paul starts out by saying “Are you prepared to go to law before a profane court, when one of you has a quarrel with one another?” – If that’s not talking about legal concerns, I don’t know what is. But focus on how Paul shifts the legal topic, in 6:14, “And God, just as he has raised our Lord from the dead by his great power will raise us too … and the two, we are told, will become one flesh. Whereas the man who unites himself to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.”

So Paul is now binging in the ideas found most strongly in John 6:28 forward – about how the flesh [alone] is useless but that at the same time, without the Flesh, we have no life (whatsoever) in us. eg: This has been the truth since all the way back in Genesis 2:18 when God decided that it was not good for the man to be “alone”.

But Paul does not say all we need is the Spirit, alone, as if the body and Theosis have nothing to do with each other; rather he says in that same chapter in Corinthians 6, “Have you never been told that your bodies belong to the body of Christ?”

So, I think it obvious that what makes a person clean is the Spirit that gives him life from within; a spirit that an infant does not have before baptism, at any age, and this Spirit wells up to wash a man continually and especially during the act of communion ; so long as he is not in mortal sin.

So the children of unbelievers are unclean in potential because there is no way that they will be raised with the right attitude toward sin and will become unclean.

It would be highly irresponsible to read Corinthians out of context like that. Paul has been talking strictly and only about the marriage covenant itself. Not the raising of children, and there is not word said about “potential” uncleanness, but rather a judgment that they would be “unclean”. period. End of story.

Note: The immediate context of 1Corinthians 7, is whether or not to divorce an unbeliever ; an extremely legal matter esp. marriage requires an oath, (sacramentum), and is precisely the same oath is involved in our salvation; God has even threatened to divorce various peoples in the past, to their damnation.

I child that dies before they become unclean cannot be viewed unclean because it would undo the work of Christ.

Then:

Show me where, anywhere, in Eastern fathers writing, then – where a Chruch Father says that even one infant outside of the sacrament of Baptism and Matrydom (and Eucharist), can definitely be said to go to heaven. Not even Mary, the mother of God – went to heaven without receiving him in the Eucharist.

I can’t find it anywhere; and without such a saying, I humbly submit – you’re misinterpreting them. As far as I know, There’s not ONE Father who is willing to say that an infant being damned just because they didn’t have baptism automatically undoes the work of Christ on the cross ; even though God desires, “all men be saved”

 

[pacloc]

Most of your post I fully agree with, our views begin to differ at this point:

“So, I think it obvious that what makes a person clean is the Spirit that gives him life from within; a spirit that an infant does not have before baptism, at any age, and this Spirit wells up to wash a man continually and especially during the act of communion ; so long as he is not in mortal sin.”

This is from Cyril of Alexandria’s “That Christ is One.”

“Seeing that we have been made accursed because of the transgression in Adam and forsaken of God have fallen under the snare of death, and that all things have been made new in Christ, and a return of our condition to what it was in the beginning [has taken place]; need was it that the second Adam which is out of Heaven, He Who is superior to all sin, the All-holy and Undefiled second first-fruits of our race, Christ, should free from sentence the nature of men and call again upon it the good favour that is from above and from the Father and undo the forsaking 48 through His Obedience and entire subjection. For He did no sin, and the race of man in Him has gained the riches of spotlessness and entire blamelessness, so that it at length may with boldness cry out, My God my God why forsookest Thou me?”

And from 1 John 2:1,2

“I am writing this, my children, to stop you sinning; but if anyone should sin, we have our advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, who is just; he is the sacrifice that takes our sins away, and not only ours, but the whole world’s.”

I believe that this could make a case that what Christ did does not depend on us at all. It is just that we could lose this if we choose to deny it. So an infant does not deny this, so is blameless, for Christ took away the sins not only of believers but of unbelievers (the whole world) if they come to recognize it, now they must not deny turn their back on it again.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Pacloc,

I’ll have to reply more in depth over the next few days.
But, I want to correct what looks like a misconception on your part about the doctrine of original sin as held by Latins.

The Passage in 1John 2, is talking about an actual sin, something which is committed;
Using such an apologetic against an informed Latin won’t have an effect, for we are not taught to believe that “original sin” is a an actualized sin. In essence, because Original Sin is not a sin that a person commits, I don’t see how it can be “taken away” when it’s not a breaking of law in the first place:

Look at the CCC first:
CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

404 … It is a ‘sin’ which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Please note, carefully, the word “corruption” in the CCC and the idea of “dominion of death” – and compare it to what was promised Christ, and all true Christians who reach Theosis through faithfulness: eg: as in: Psalm 16:10 even in the Septuagint Greek ( ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm )

I think this promise is the key to harmonizing the thoughts of East and West in a consistent way with the scriptures, and theology, for God warned Adam, that if he sinned he would “die to death” (2 deaths). Genesis 2:17

Genes 2:17 … απ’ αυτου θαν-ατω απο-θαν-εισθε

And, Even in the East – Great saints, like Athanatius, when talking about the incarnation seize on the distinction that it is not death alone – but corruption which Adam brought upon all of us;

He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, “Of every tree that is in the garden thou shalt surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat, but in the day that ye do eat, ye shall surely die.” — not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption.

It is not man’s natural state, therefore, before the fall, to corrupt and rot in the grave.
However, ever since that time – and even in men who DO NOT SIN like Adam, death reigns: ( Roman 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. )

Now – Notice, I’m in the Maronite church weekly – and I’d like you to call to mind that the very saint who is patrons of my church has been witnessed as saint by a peculiar proof, namely – that upon death, their body did not suffer the reign of death; eg: the body did not rot / corrupt – and this non-corruption of the body, with no preservatives, over a period of years in wet bacterial conditions, even, is one of the very things which the church accepts as a proof of their purity and sainthood. The body did not rot, and become dust which the serpent may “eat” ; and that is exactly what God promised his faithful “one” – So this is a sign that Sharbel reached Theosis with him who is incorruptible, the man who IS the resurrection. John 11:25. ( Often it seems that saints fail to rot for a duration that is in proportion to their holiness. )

miraclesofthechurch.com/2010/10/incorrupt-bodies-of-saints-st-charbel.html

If a child were truly restored to the State of Adam and Eve before the fall in all respects, then at least some should no longer suffer corruption at least for a time. eg: They should, because of their purity – (if only purity were required) – be incorruptible.

but I have never heard of an aborted child, who was buried, being exhumed later incorrupt. Nor have I ever heard of the church, proclaiming an unbaptized and unmartyred infant a saint. ( East or West ).

Again, we’re not talking about punishment for a sin committed --nor even Catharsis, or being clean, which is only preparation for Theosis; Because Jesus told us clearly that a man who merely has his soul swept clean (Catharsis) can have seven demons come back from the desert and possess him (He didn’t say the man let them ‘in’), making his final state worse than the first.

No one, either East nor West – is accusing infants of actual sins which must be removed. Rather, I think we can both affirm that incorruption comes from union with Christ (Theosis), who is the resurrection – and corruption is a sign of lack of Theosis.

 

[pacloc]

Your arguments don’t help your case of child baptism any more than what I have been saying. Why do children that are baptized and die still corrupt? If it is because they have not gone through theosis, how are they any different from infants that were not baptized and didn’t go through theosis which is the only way to enter Heaven by this way of looking at things. You are looking at things from the western view where original sin means something barring you from God, where from an eastern view it just affects the drives/emotions/passions/intellect/mortality/health/etc, not a separation from God in a literal way, but definitely a challenge to fight against through one’s life and impossible to overcome without God’s Grace, the Holy Spirit. If a person does not have the opportunity to experience life in the corrupted world and body, the effects of original/ancestral sin jumped straight to death/sickness. I just don’t see how you gather from scripture or eastern tradition that a child could be separated from God without consent to personal sin. I will just add that maybe God in wanting these children to exercise their free will, could give them tests after death in a similar way in which we understand the angels were tested; purely speculation, I have not researched to see if their is any support in any of the Fathers.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Your arguments don’t help your case of child baptism any more than what I have been saying. Why do children that are baptized and die still corrupt?

Because, 1st, the world as a whole, especially, is clearly not in the same state as Adam and Eve before Adam sinned, but bears a corruption which Adam and Eve would not have had without the fall. ( Read Athanatius, chapter 1, very carefully – and please note,he is clearly an Eatern Orthodox Saint; Not a Latin. spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm )

And 2nd, I think (personally) the reason baptized infants still corrupt either comes from the state of the parents body, or else goes back to what I talked about in post #9 and #10 in this thread – For regarding an actualized sin, it does not matter if the infant at the breast is baptized or not – nor guilty or not of knowing. (Jesus says ignorance excuses sin – at least in the English translation – but does not say that ignorance makes a sin into something that is not a sin.) eg: The failure of a child to practice virtue, or to do the “right” thing, can be assumed to be excused, automatically, on account of the fact that they could not possibly know they are committing a sin, or else because the body is doing something instinctively that the will is not controlling (an inherited condition found in the body alone), and therefore they in their will are not “sinning” (an ad-verb, as in modifying an action) – but the fact that sin (an objective thing) happened still remains a fact even though the child is not a transgressor, and does not ‘sin’ like Adam did.

Note: On some orthodox sites, I’ve seen a distinction made between merely not being on the mark ( αμαρτια ) and actively sinning/missing the mark by an act ( αμαρτημα ). I think that underscores the kind of distinction I am trying to make.

If it is because they have not gone through theosis, how are they any different from infants that were not baptized and didn’t go through theosis which is the only way to enter Heaven by this way of looking at things.

An infant that has been baptized, has been cleansed (Catharsis), and given the ability to ‘see’ God to some extent (Theoria), but the fullness of the process (merit/virtue?) is not complete – and the term “Theosis” applies to the whole process. So a batized child has begun Theosis, whereas one who has not been baptized has nothing at all.

It is again, this idea of nothingness – privation – emptiness – which causes corruption.

You are looking at things from the western view where original sin means something barring you from God, where from an eastern view it just affects the drives/emotions/passions/intellect/mortality/health/etc, not a separation from God in a literal way, but definitely a challenge to fight against through one’s life and impossible to overcome without God’s Grace, the Holy Spirit.

It seems to me Easterners are talking out of both sides of their mouth… ?
Is Athanatious wrong ? or have I accidentally quoted some kind of Eastern Heretic ?

What exactly did you mean by paraphrasing an Eastern father as saying that the whole world is in exactly the same state as Adam and Eve before the fall ? But now you are saying that "original sin’ affects our emotions, drives, etc?

What did the sin of Adam “do” to us, his ‘children’ in your thinking ?

If a person does not have the opportunity to experience life in the corrupted world and body, the effects of original/ancestral sin jumped straight to death/sickness. I just don’t see how you gather from scripture or eastern tradition that a child could be separated from God without consent to personal sin. I will just add that maybe God in wanting these children to exercise their free will, could give them tests after death in a similar way in which we understand the angels were tested; purely speculation, I have not researched to see if their is any support in any of the Fathers.

The church believes as she prays; in the Liturgy. If she believed even such ONE infant was in heaven, who was not baptized, or Martyred (the Holy innocents!!), then there should be a prayer to that saint…

So – silence is very clearly a tradition – why else has the East been ignoring a huge portion of the communion of saints, for abortions are in the millions ?! baptism and exorcisms is also a trandition; and to this very day, I have seen no Eastern Liturgy where the aborted children are prayed to as saints – ( and if it started, “now” it would be a novelty – not a tradition. )

 

[pacloc]

Please explain where Athanasius agrees with anything that you are claiming goes against what I have said. I have read and now reread his book on the Incarnation, and it only reinforces what I have been saying about there being nothing that would condemn an infant baptized or not. I also did not paraphrase St. Cyril, those are his words. I think it is you who needs to read carefully what Athanasius is saying. Your logic on praying to aborted babies is ridiculous, why would you pray to someone you know nothing about? What of all the babies that were baptized and died? Do you pray to them?

Also, when it is said that we are back to the level of Adam, it is in an invisible, spiritual sense. Our view to death has changed from that of captivity/enslavement to that of imitation of Christ, self sacrificing love, free of attachment to the corrupt world.

I think we have gone around this merry go round long enough. If you cannot understand that certain things were never described using some of the western lingo, I don’t know how I will ever convince you that you are arguing from a point that does not exist in the east. I am not even eastern Catholic, I just understand where they come from.

 

[Vico]

The conclusion of the INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION in THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED is:103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Please explain where Athanasius … goes against what I have said … it only reinforces what I have been saying about there being nothing that would condemn an infant baptized or not.

I never said an infant would be condemned. In fact, I have been quite careful to say that the punishments of hell are not involved.

I also did not paraphrase St. Cyril, those are his words.

I see – then either Athanatius or Cyril is wrong, or exaggerating. For we either are fully restored to be like Adam and Eve, or we are not. eg: the inferences of these Saints do not agree. Athenatius basically proves that Adam brought corruption permanently – But Cyril ignores the fact… and Jesus never corrupted, ever.

Are you sure the translation of Cyril is correct?

I think it is you who needs to read carefully what Athanasius is saying.

Correct me, then.

… praying to aborted babies is ridiculous, why would you pray to someone you know nothing about? What of all the babies that were baptized and died? Do you pray to them?

I do pray to the holy innocents. I pray to them because they are saints and I am not the only one who does so.

Why do you ridicule my faith ?

Obviously, if you can say these other children were “aborted” – then, in spite of yourself, you clearly do know something about them.

There are even many fully grown adult saints where we know almost nothing about – and that includes about two of the 12 Apostles as well. Yet we still include them in our prayers. And – It’s a sad thing, but there are even names mentioned in the canon of the mass – the Latin rite – where there might be something known about the saints – but if you ask any of the Catholics in mass, and I mean the vast Majority, they can not tell you a single thing about the saint.

So, no – really – knowing about a saint’s life is simply not required. A huge number of very faithful believers pray in ignorant bliss every week.

Also, when it is said that we are back to the level of Adam, it is in an invisible, spiritual sense. Our view to death has changed from that of captivity/enslavement to that of imitation of Christ, self sacrificing love, free of attachment to the corrupt world.

That’s beautiful – but strange. I don’t know what it means in practice with infants.

It may be true of those who have been baptized – but there are plenty of bible quotes in the NT showing that at least some men can be and still are captive under the power of sin and death. so: If you mean infants purity = union with God ? Where do the people from the East come up with the idea that man is automatically able to see, hear, and talk to God like Adam – even without baptism ? (eg: spirit to Spirit ) ? I thought that required enlightenment ?

I think we have gone around this merry go round long enough. If you cannot understand that certain things were never described using some of the western lingo, I don’t know how I will ever convince you that you are arguing from a point that does not exist in the east. I am not even eastern Catholic, I just understand where they come from.

It’s not a matter of western lingo. It’s a matter of scripture, and the sayings of the Fathers – and the interpretation of their words.

My difficulty in understanding you stems from what appears to be picking and choosing of the quotes without contemplating the relationship among the words – or perhaps you don’t really know the West, and are just starting with the East ? If so, it’s not surprising you wouldn’t see the things I see.

In the West, we ARE aware that the human spirit animates the body and shapes or (in)forms it, therefore diseases of the body are affected by spiritual realities.

St. Paul shows this same point when he talks about physical illness due to failing to judge correctly the spiritual reality in the body:
1Corinthians 11:29-30 “that’s why many of you are weak, and ill, and some have died.”

Any way that I look at it – I still don’t see how the unbaptized can really be like Adam before the fall, nor what Cyril means by what he said.

So – let’s focus on what Athanatius said:

It was Athanatius who very clearly points out that Sin, and the effects of sin, are both deprivations; eg: they are not “things” but the loss of something. One of the losses for Adam and Eve was that their spirit would weaken to the point that their bodies would corrupt, turn back into dust, ( and the Scripture says that the devil should feast on that dust. Genesis 3:14. )

Athanatius said, essentially, that without God – creation (eg: body) tries to return to it’s natural state, which is a tendency toward “nothingness”.

That’s one of the major reasons that corruption is associated with loss of God ; and theosis, equates to incorruptibility (but in degrees). The church does have sinners…

Corruption is different from merely suffering death; as death can be something we face in order to be ‘like’ Christ – and even before the fall of Adam, there was death – as in a seed germinating ( John 12:24 ); eg: for death by itself is merely a transformation. Corruption, on the other hand – is a result of a creature loosing access to God.

If a body corrupts, that is proof that it is sustained neither by God, nor by the spirit of the man which was once in that body.

Any body which corrupts, is by definition – unclean, and unworthy of heaven.

In a sense, to loose the body to corruption can be seen as a punishment – or it can alternately be seen as a necessary form of purgation / catharsis ; for nothing unclean can enter heaven, so to have the unclean body rot away leaves only clean bones for the day of resurrection.

Again, it is possible to hope that an infant who dies unbaptized can enter heaven, even for us who were raised in the Latin rite. But we have absolutely no guarantees – we ONLY have hope.