RC Church becoming more Eastern?

[Bluegoat]

Regardless of peoples belief in original sin (which may in fact be flawed) the teaching of the Church on infant baptism and the speculative nature of Limbo has remained constant.

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (1891 version):
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. 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.

This is the document from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which makes the statement:

1. …The later scholastics thereby envisaged three possible destinies (at least in practice, though in principle they might have accepted only two destinies: heaven and hell), and understood, against Augustine, that it was by the grace of Christ that the numerous infants in Limbo were there and not in hell!
2. …
   “Though some medieval theologians maintained the possibility of an intermediate, natural, destiny, gained by the grace of Christ (gratia sanans), namely Limbo,[see paragraph 90] we consider such a solution problematic and wish to indicate that other approaches are possible, based on hope for a redemptive grace given to unbaptised infants who die which opens for them the way to heaven. We believe that, in the development of doctrine, the solution in terms of Limbo can be surpassed in view of a greater theological hope.”

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

And it has been a constant teaching the infants should be baptised for salvation.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINFAN.htm

I really rather feel that you have missed my point.

Let me ask a question:

Why do you think it is that formerly the idea of Limbo seemed a reasonable view, in light of the doctrine of original sin, to Catholics, while now it does not?

 

[Vico]

I really rather feel that you have missed my point.

Let me ask a question:

Why do you think it is that formerly the idea of Limbo seemed a reasonable view, in light of the doctrine of original sin, to Catholics, while now it does not?

It would not be because of original sin dogma which has not changed. Similarly not because of the teaching on infant baptism, which has also not changed. The opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas was that the punishment for original sin is the privation of the Beatific Vision. I believe the idea of Infants Limbo has been abandoned over time by theologians because it is difficult to conceive of a genuine and full human happiness deprived of the Beautific Vision for which God created man.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If only the Catholic Church would reform her liturgy to be as mystical and pious and mesermizingly beautiful as the Orthodox, they’d be in business!

As for the “two lungs” analogy, I know the Orthodox cringe when they hear that. I think it is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. They feel Catholicism walked away from the Church, from sacramental certitude. The Orthodox Church has both lungs, doesn’t need a third, I would assume they’d say. The Catholic Church feels they need each other, it’s not reciprocated as Orthodoxy sees itself as fullness already…

I do notice Catholics really really fascinated with iconography these days, a fascination with Eastern views on Original Sin, some folks saying they could live without the filioque, heck, maybe if the Catholics can drop the papal infallibility and supremacy stuff, the Orthodox will consider a reunion!

Some beards will have to grow, too!

 

[mardukm]

From what I know, the Eastern concept of “we don’t know what happens to those not in the Church” has only been around in the Eastern Tradition about 100 years or so. The idea was first popularized by a Russian Orthodox (I forget his name), and when he initially proposed it, he was censured by the EOC.

On the other hand, the Western Tradition seems to be the one that has had a constant Tradition of being less judgmental about those who may not be within the visible boundaries of the Church (e.g., invincible ignorance, Limbo, etc.)

On this particular point, the Easterns are the ones who seem to have become more Western in their thinking.

On the matter of original sin, what exactly about the Western teaching do some feel has become “Eastern?” I have particular interest in an answer to that question because from my studies of historic Latin Catholicism, their teaching on original sin is practically identical to that of the Oriental Tradition (though there are a very few differences in theological terminology, to be sure).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I was of the understanding that the Orthodox for centuries have believed in a Cyprianic approach to Sacraments and grace?..the idea that they can tell us where grace “is” not where “it is not.” This is the sentiment I have read? It doesn’t seem to be a new idea?

I don’t see the Orthodox becoming more Western in anything except using pews?

From what I know, the Eastern concept of “we don’t know what happens to those not in the Church” has only been around in the Eastern Tradition about 100 years or so. The idea was first popularized by a Russian Orthodox (I forget his name), and when he initially proposed it, he was censured by the EOC.

On the other hand, the Western Tradition seems to be the one that has had a constant Tradition of being less judgmental about those who may not be within the visible boundaries of the Church (e.g., invincible ignorance, Limbo, etc.)

On this particular point, the Easterns are the ones who seem to have become more Western in their thinking.

On the matter of original sin, what exactly about the Western teaching do some feel has become “Eastern?” I have particular interest in an answer to that question because from my studies of historic Latin Catholicism, their teaching on original sin is practically identical to that of the Oriental Tradition (though there are a very few differences in theological terminology, to be sure).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I was of the understanding that the Orthodox for centuries have believed in a Cyprianic approach to Sacraments and grace?..the idea that they can tell us where grace “is” not where “it is not.” This is the sentiment I have read? It doesn’t seem to be a new idea?

I don’t see the Orthodox becoming more Western in anything except using pews?

Ummm. St. Cyprian is a LATIN Church Father.

Like I said, the Western Church has been the one with the constant Tradition of being less judgmental about those who are outside the visible boundaries of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ummmm, I know that, marduk. No need for um’s and dur’s and the like. But Cyprian’s approach to orders has not been the heritage of the West. The West has always kept with an Augustinian approach to orders, the validity and whether they are illicit or licit, etc. Cyprian’s approach is the Orthodox way, doesn’t matter where Cyprian was from…? Give me a little credit for knowing some Church history, too, Mard…

Ummm. St. Cyprian is a LATIN Church Father.

Like I said, the Western Church has been the one with the constant Tradition of being less judgmental about those who are outside the visible boundaries of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

But Cyprian’s approach to orders has not been the heritage of the West. The West has always kept with an Augustinian approach to orders, the validity and whether they are illicit or licit, etc.

We’re not talking about orders or validity of Sacraments, but the concept of salvation for those who don’t have Sacraments.

Cyprian’s approach is the Orthodox way, doesn’t matter where Cyprian was from…?

It feels wierd to call Cyprian’s approach “the Orthodox way,” when Cyprian’s approach was not approved by the Ecumenical Councils. The Ecum Councils recognized that even certain heretics and schismatics had grace-filled Baptism and Holy Orders. That was not the teaching/praxis of St. Cyprian. Whatever teaching and praxis Eastern Orthodox hold today on the matter has little or no support from the Ecum Councils, and thus don’t merit the phrase “the Orthodox way.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Gents (and Ladies) this is very enlightening… let’s keep this pleasant please.

The issue of original sin between the East & the West seems to focus around the Immaculate Conception. Can we get a little dialogue around that maybe?

Also interesting discussion on whether RC’s have valid orders from an EO view (but probably deserves another thread).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Gents (and Ladies) this is very enlightening… let’s keep this pleasant please.

The issue of original sin between the East & the West seems to focus around the Immaculate Conception. Can we get a little dialogue around that maybe?

Also interesting discussion on whether RC’s have valid orders from an EO view (but probably deserves another thread).

The only issue that the East wouldn’t agree with the Immaculate Conception is all about Original Sin. But everything else is exactly the same between East and West.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Well then there must be a difference in the definition of Original Sin between East & West if the East doesn’t agree with the way OS is used in the IC?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well then there must be a difference in the definition of Original Sin between East & West if the East doesn’t agree with the way OS is used in the IC?

Not just in the IC, but Original Sin itself is defined differently in the East. Of course Eastern Christians believes that Mary, the Mother of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, is pure and unblemished from conception 'til her dormition. But there is no “God exempting her from Original Sin the moment prior to conception”.

 

[dcointin]

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” (G. Florovsky, “Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church”, in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say." - Kallistos Ware

 

[dcointin]

Mardukm - how would you interpret the following?

"Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[hazcompat]

doesn’t post #33 answer post #34?

peace

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good point. That quote is pretty much self-explanatory and seems to really contradict the modern catechism’s view on salvation for Jews, Muslims, and the invincibly ignorant, etc.

Mardukm - how would you interpret the following?

"Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Gurneyhalleck,

So you are saying the Roman Catholic Church has contradicted herself? What else has she contradicted herself on?

Does this mean that since the RC Church is no longer infallible, we EC’s can return to our respective Orthodox Churches and bid you and yours adieu?

Alex

 

[dcointin]

doesn’t post #33 answer post #34?

peace

Post #33 is from an Orthodox bishop and theologian, while post #34 is from a Pope. In the former I was giving what I’ve been taught as an Orthodox about the salvation of those outside the Church, and contrasting it with the latter quotation which seems to exclude that. I realize that one quotation by no means proves a point, and I’m honestly looking for how the ‘modern’ understanding of the Catholic Church is reconciled with its ‘former’ understanding (if indeed such a juxaposition is possible).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Alex,

I am moving in that direction, yes. Eastern Catholicism is something I’ve never understood really. I understand it historically but personally I think Eastern Orthodoxy makes a lot more sense…

Dear Gurneyhalleck,

So you are saying the Roman Catholic Church has contradicted herself? What else has she contradicted herself on?

Does this mean that since the RC Church is no longer infallible, we EC’s can return to our respective Orthodox Churches and bid you and yours adieu?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Gurney,

:hug3:

Alex