Posted on 10/10/2004 4:38:20 PM PDT by Stubborn
The Second Vatican Council's reforms and the new theological challenges it posed placed the question of unbaptized babies on the back burner for most theologians, but many bishops around the world have asked the doctrinal congregation for guidance on the question.
Unbaptised babies, both born and unborn, who have died sit at the knee of the Lord, I am as sure of that as I am that God is.
The Roman Church has never held the Orthodox are schismatics. No Orthodox Bishops have been condemned by name (the last and only one who was was the Patriarch in 1054), and the Churches themselves are neither condemned nor prohibited either, nor do they operate under an interdict. Catholics are encouraged to attend Divine Liturgy at their Churches if no Catholic Church is available on Sunday to fulfill their obligation to worship God on Sunday.
As far as we are concerned, the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are one Church, and our members are allowed to receive all the Sacraments from ministers of either group. The Bishops of Greece, Russia, etc., are disobedient, in our view, not schismatic, and not heretical. The only thing actually lacking in our relationship, in our view, is that the Eastern Bishops owe the Pope a letter of communion upon their installation in a See. For a variety of reasons, this has not happened for 800-1000 years.
The Catholic Church recognizes the jurisdicitional rulings of Eastern Bishops (in such matters as dissolving marriages through ecclesiastical divorce, for example), and upholds the rulings. By Roman Catholic theology, the only way this is possible is if the Orthodox Bishops are considered legitimate holders of real local Churches with actual spiritual powers operating within the one and only Church.
The same thing holds also for the other Eastern Churches (in Egpyt, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, etc.). When our formal relation was severed with those bodies, it was over the condemnation of certain people (Nestorius, Eutyches, etc.), not the condemnation of those Churches and their members.
The proper name all these Churches call themselves by in their official instructions to their priests and people is "The Catholic Church". Thus, the Greek Orthodox are properly "The Orthodox Catholic Church of Greece (or Jerusalem, or Russia, etc.)". The Assyrians are properly "The Assyrian Catholic Church of the East".
Then it must follow that God creatred Adam and Eve and set them up for a failure...If that is so, then nothing we do is our own doing. We are but God's puppets on a string. Where is the accountabilty and free will? So, God makes us and breaks us; He damns us and then he saves us?
If, on the other hand, the Fall is truly our failure, we take ownership of our decadence. If we have free will, we created our own demise by abusing it. No punishment was needed. God offered us salvation despite Adam's disobedience.
"The proper name all these Churches call themselves by in their official instructions to their priests and people is "The Catholic Church". Thus, the Greek Orthodox are properly "The Orthodox Catholic Church of Greece (or Jerusalem, or Russia, etc.)". The Assyrians are properly "The Assyrian Catholic Church of the East"
Actually, we profess our belief in "One Holy, Catholic and Apsotolic Church". +Bartholomeus is know as "His All Holiness BARTHOLOMEUS, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch." Nothing about Orthodox in his title, though of course that is what we believe he is.
I'm glad to hear we're not schismatics so far as Rome is concerned.
For the record, The pope at Florence was Pope Eugene IV in 1442 that proclimated the one I posted.
At the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 with Pope Innocent III decreed: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
Then theres the Papal Bull Unam Sanctum of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302 that declares ex-cathedra:"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter."
The above teaching is infallible - that is - "without the possibility of error".
Tell me, Stubborn, since I assume that the Roman Church considers those in Communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch schismatics, does this quote from the Council of Florence mean I was right to run home crying about my grandparents so many years ago?
I do not know if the church considers your grandparents and the rest in schism or not. I am not familiar with the Orthodox Church but will look into it from the link that you gave me when I get the opportunity.
I know that the Roman Church held to the doctrine that even the decrees of an Ecumenical Council are not dogma unless accepted by the Church as a whole at least through the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
This is not so. The doctrine on Infallibilty is very clearly written and easily read from Vatican Council I. I won't post all the particulars here but heres a link. If you do read it, notice that the dogma is again repeated by Pope Pius IX in his Profession of Faith.
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#INTRODUCTION
It appears from your post that the Roman Church considers the Council of Florence to be an Ecumenical Council (the East doesn't, of course, but not for the usual reasons). If this is so, and since it is manifestly clear that the Church in the East never accepted the decisions of that Council, by what right would Rome still hold to those decisions?
Because they (infallible declarations) are binding on all Catholics for for all time. An infallible pronouncement and its meaning can never change. IOW, for all time, it must always be understood in the exact same sence it was declared - no re-formulating allowed, positively or otherwise under the pretext of a better understanding.
From Vatican I - Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
Finally, what effect, if any, do the mutual lifting of the anathemas by Pope Paul VI and +Pat. Athenagoras in 1964 have on this position as well as the mutual recognition of our sacraments (something we share with no other "churches")?
Not sure what you are referring to here. No pope, AFAIK, has ever lifted any anethemas. Maybe Pope VI did, I'm just unaware of it.
Very well put! Thats how I understood it but its been a long time.
Death exists as a result of sin, but that doesn't mean that every person who dies is being punished for sin. Suppose an infant is killed by a drunk driver -- they die as a result of drunk driving, but that doesn't mean they carry guilt for drunk driving.
Do you believe that everyone who is not a Catholic when he dies goes to Hell?
I'm a bit confused when I compare your post 162 with 163. 162 would seem to require that the Orthodox are at a minimum schismatics, since, as I am sure you would agree, we do not accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibilty nor do we subscribe to the notion that anything other than an Ecumenical Council can infallibly state anything for the whole Church, and even then only if the "whole Church" accepts it. The last Ecumenical Council, the 7th, was in 787. Some people in the West argue there was an 8th, in 869-870, but we call that the 4th Council of Constantinople. The other councils you mention , so far as I know (save perhaps the 1442 Council of Florence which I have heard the Roman Church calls ecumenical; we do not for reasons I've already stated)are not considered ecumenical even by Rome. Now I can accept that a local Western Council can establish discipline for those under the Patriarch of the West, but, absent an acceptance of the dogma of Papal, that is to say, estra-ecumenical council, infallibilty, I don't see how even a conservative Roman Catholic can argue that local Western councils can pronounce anything for the whole Church any more than I would argue that some late middle ages council in the Ottoman Empire could have effectively pronounced dogma for the Christian West.
Thus, post 1054 Papal Bulls and Roman Councils can, at least from the Orthodox pov, have no authoritative force in the Eastern Church because a) they were not proclaimed by an ecumenical council and accepted by the whole Church and b) the East does not and never has to my knowledge accepted any doctrine of Papal Infallibilty. Now, assuming that the foregoing is a correct statement of the "post schism" state of the Church, then for Hermann's post 163 in response to mine to be correct, as you have stated, the Roman Church must still hold to the doctrine of the One Church (pre-1054) on the Infallibilty of Ecumenical Councils when establishing dogma for the whole Church. I say this because we Orthodox believe a & b above. The logical result of this is that Councils, bulls, etc, occuring after the 7th Ecumenical Council must then, per force, be local and disciplinary in nature and not dogmatic for the whole Church (or perhaps "dogmatic" for only a part of the Church, but that seems to fly in the face of what the Fathers taught). If what I have laid out is not the Roman position, then how can it be that the Roman Church and the Eastern Church are not in schism, as Hermann said and I think attempted to demonstrate. On a more mundane level, if we are not in communion with each other, as surely we are not, what is the difference between non-communion and schism? And if we are in schism, am I not damned according to what you have posted?
Your posts confuse me and I await enlightenment!
I agree - it does not mean that each death inparticular is because of actual sins comitted - indeed, we die even if we never commit a sin our whole life (impossible IMO) - but the reason each one of us actually have to die is because each one of us, including infants, are born into this world with sin.
And what about Christ?
As far as "Non-Catholics are concerned, I am bound by the church to believe that all those outside the church will go to hell when they die.
If you can find an infallible declaration that contradicts the ones I have already offered, please feel free to enlighten me because as of yet, I have not found it and have no doubt that the Church never will and never can change Her mind.
Please, I am interested in your opinion of the following senario that I think states plainly how ludicrous personal preferences are in regards to salvation:
**********
Take this sort of reasoning, for example: A man says, "My religion, or an important part of it at least, is to respect your religion, regardless of what it is."
Or, "I hold that Christ is Divine. If you say He is not Divine, I have respect for your belief."
Do you not see that that is an awfully funny creed? I get into Heaven through Christ, and you get into Heaven without Christ! That is a strange division in a world in which we are meant to be one. In other words, I have Christ and believe He is God, but I cannot give Him to you, whom I love!
Do you really and truly believe that Jesus is God and that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, Who leadeth all men into eternity?
Whoever says that he has Jesus Christ for his Saviour, and thinks that everyone else does not have to have Him as Saviour too, does not really believe in or love Jesus Christ.
He is the one who said that unless we are baptized, we will not get to heaven - since infants are born into this world with sin, He (purposely?) left no proviso for infants.
"As far as "Non-Catholics are concerned, I am bound by the church to believe that all those outside the church will go to hell when they die."
When you say "church" am I to assume that you speak of the Church of Rome and those in communion with the Pope of Rome? And if this is so, may I also assume that members of the Orthodox Churches are therefor condemned to Hell and that you have answered my question posed in post 170?
On second thought... Let's not go to Camelot.
'Tis a silly place....
Stubborn wrote: "As far as Non-Catholics are concerned, I am bound by the church to believe that all those outside the church will go to hell when they die."
Just to be clear, you believe that non-Catholics all go to Hell because you believe that the Church has infallibly said so.
It follows, therefore, that you believe that the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, and the Teaching Authority of the Magesterium of the Church as well as the Pope are both in grave error, because they explicitly say the opposite of what you have said is infallible doctrine.
So, it's your interpretation of what it infallible versus the Pope's and the Magesterium's.
What is the status of a Catholic who directly and openly defies and contradicts and infallible doctrine of the Church? Does that Catholic damn himself to Hell?
Is the Pope doomed to Hell because he has asserted that all non-Christians do not go to Hell?
If, as you say, the Orthodox deny personal submission to the vicar of Christ, then, I do not understand how the Orthodox or the RCC can hope for a fruitfull reconciliation.
If the Orthodox is waiting for Rome to officially change its mind on certain issues (Papal infallibility or personal submission for example), it ain't gonna happen. It simply can never happen because once the church establishes itself with a position deemed as being infallible - and it already has - there is no pope or magisterium that can ever truthfully abrogate it. Whats more, if it ever does happen, (to date it never has) then the whole dogma of infallibility goes down the drain and the Church can be said to have been built on sand instead of St. Peter the Rock.
In regards to the possibility of the RCC changing, Here one principle stands out: "Par in parem potestatem non habet": Equals have no power over each other. No one, therefore, can constrain his equals. This is particularly true of the supreme power. This is essentially the same power exercised through its different holders. It is necessary to give the most careful consideration to the full import of this principle. If a pope (to speak only of the highest religious authority) has the power to loose what another pope by the same power has bound, then he should use this right only for the gravest possible reasons: reasons which would have prompted his predecessor to revoke his own law. Otherwise, the essence of supreme authority is itself eroded by successive contradictory commands.
There is no interpretaion because the decrees are plain and unambigous by design. Interpretation.......or more accuratly, RE-interpretation is only necessary when the original decree is absolutly and positively re-formulated - as I am sure you'll agree.
Why do you seem to have such a hard time responding to my last two posts? I grant you that it may be difficult to frame a response consistent with what you say is Roman dogma on theosis. After all, I am speaking of The Orthodox Church, which holds to this day precisely and without change the same Faith the Roman Church confessed through the 7 Ecumenical Councils and beyond.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.