Posted on 06/11/2005 7:27:43 AM PDT by sionnsar
Ten years ago or so I dreamed that I was an Orthodox priest. If you had asked me even three years ago what if I would become if I ever decided to leave the Episcopal Church, I would have replied “Eastern Orthodox.” Yet today I find myself becoming what I truly never seriously considered until the past two years.
Why did I not choose to become Orthodox? Who but God can answer? All such matters are a mystery, a mystery between the mystery of the human heart and the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Rational analysis takes one only so far. All I really know is that during the past two years, as I intently studied both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I found myself increasingly drawn, against my will and desire, and certainly to my amazement, to Catholicism.
I love the liturgy and sacramental life of the Orthodox Church. It speaks to the depths of my heart. I long to pray the Divine Liturgy and be formed by its music, poetry, beaity, and ritual.
I love the integration of theology, dogma, spirituality, and asceticism within Orthodoxy. There is a wholeness to Orthodox experience that is compelling, powerful, and attractive on many different levels. This wholeness refuses any bifurcation between mind and heart and invites the believer into deeper reconciliation in Christ by the Spirit. This wholeness is something that Western Christians particularly need, as we confront and battle the corrosive powers of Western modernity and secularism.
I love the reverence and devotion Orthodoxy gives to the saints and church fathers, who are experienced in the Church as living witnesses to the gospel of Christ Jesus. I love the icons.
And I love the theological writings of many Orthodox writers, especially Alexander Schmemann and Georges Florovsky. For all these reasons and for many more, it would have been oh so very easy for me to become Orthodox.
But two features in particular gave me pause.
First, I am troubled by Orthodoxy’s “Easternness.” The coherence and power of Orthodoxy is partially achieved by excluding the Western tradition from its spiritual and theological life. One is hard-pressed to find an Orthodox writer who speaks highly of the Western Church, of her saints, ascetics, and theologians, of her manifold contributions to Christian religion and Western civilization. According to Orthodox consensus, Western Christianity went off the tracks somewhere along the way and must now be judged as a heresy. Understandably, Eastern Christianity considers itself the touchstone and standard by which the Western tradition is to be judged.
To put it simply, Orthodoxy has no real place for St Augustine. He is commemorated as a saint, but the bulk of his theological work is rejected. The noted scholar, Fr John Romanides, has been particularly extreme. I raised my concern about Orthodoxy and the West a year ago in my blog article Bad, bad Augustine. In that article I cited one of the few Orthodox scholars, David B. Hart, who has been willing to address Orthodox caricature of Western theologians:
The most damaging consequence, however, of Orthodoxy’s twentieth-century pilgrimage ad fontes—and this is no small irony, given the ecumenical possibilities that opened up all along the way—has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic. Or, rather, an increase in the confidence with which such polemic is uttered. Nor is this only a problem for ecumenism: the anti-Western passion (or, frankly, paranoia) of Lossky and his followers has on occasion led to rather severe distortions of Eastern theology. More to the point here, though, it has made intelligent interpretations of Western Christian theology (which are so very necessary) apparently almost impossible for Orthodox thinkers. Neo-patristic Orthodox scholarship has usually gone hand in hand with some of the most excruciatingly inaccurate treatments of Western theologians that one could imagine—which, quite apart form the harm they do to the collective acuity of Orthodox Christians, can become a source of considerable embarrassment when they fall into the hands of Western scholars who actually know something of the figures that Orthodox scholars choose to caluminiate. When one repairs to modern Orthodox texts, one is almost certain to encounter some wild mischaracterization of one or another Western author; and four figures enjoy a special eminence in Orthodox polemics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and John of the Cross.
Ironically, the various contributions by Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones, here on Pontifications and elsewhere, have heightened my concern. Both have sought, in various ways, to demonstrate that Western theology is incompatible with the catholic faith. While I have neither the training nor wit to follow many of their arguments, I am convinced that their project is wrong. Both presume that one can know the catholic faith independent of ecclesial commitment and formation. If one insists, for example, that St Maximos the Confessor, read through a post-schism Eastern lens, is our authoritative guide to a proper reading of the sixth Ecumenical Council, then of course Augustinian Catholicism will come off looking badly, despite the fact that Maximos was himself a great supporter of the prerogatives of Rome and despite the fact that Rome was instrumental in the defeat of monotheletism. Yet Catholicism embraces both Augustine and Maximos as saints, even though it is clear that Maximos has had minimal influence upon Western reflection, at least until very recently. Clearly Rome did not, and does not, understand the dogmatic decrees of III Constantinople as contradicting Western christological and trinitarian commitments. As much as I respect Perry and Daniel and am grateful for both their erudition and civility and their stimulating articles on these matters, it seems to me that their conclusions are more determined by their theological and ecclesial starting points than by “neutral” scholarship. And one thing I do know: there is always a brighter guy somewhere who will contest one’s favorite thesis.
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism, in my judgment, can be conclusively identified as the one and true Church by these kinds of rational arguments, as interesting and important as they may be in themselves. Arguments and reasons must be presented and considered as we seek to make the necessary choice between Rome and Constantinople, yet ultimately we are still confronted by mystery and the decision and risk of faith.
If the catholicity of Orthodoxy can only be purchased by the practical expulsion of Augustine and Aquinas, then, at least in my own mind, Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one and true Church is seriously undermined. A truly catholic Church will and must include St Augustine and St Maximos the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas and St Thomas Aquinas. A truly catholic Church will keep these great theologians in conversation with each other, and their differences and disagreements will invite the Church to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the divine mysteries. To set one against the other is not catholic, but partisan.
Second, I am troubled by the absence of a final court of appeal in controversies of faith and morals. We Anglicans are now witnessing first-hand the disintegration of a world-wide communion partially because of the absence of a divinely instituted organ of central authority. In the first millenium the Church employed the Ecumenical Council to serve as this final authority; but for the past thirteen centuries Orthodoxy has been unable to convene such a council. Is it a matter of logistics, or is the matter perhaps more serious, a question of constitutional impotence? Or has God simply protected the Orthodox from serious church-dividing heresies during this time, thereby temporarily obviating the need for such a council? Regardless, it seems to me that if Orthodoxy truly is the one Church of Jesus Christ in the exclusive sense it claims to be, then not only would it be confident in its power and authority to convene an Ecumenical Council, but it would have done so by now.
Yet as Orthodoxy begins to seriously engage the worldview and values of modernity (and post-modernity), the need for a final tribunal will perhaps become more evident. Consider just one example—contraception. It used to be the case that all Orthodox theologians would have roundly denounced most (all?) forms of contraception. But over the past twenty years or so, we have seen a growing diversity on this issue amongst Orthodox thinkers. Some state that this is really a private matter that needs to be decided between the believer and his parish priest. Clearly this privatization of the issue accords with modern sensibilities; but I am fearful of the consequences. Given the absence of a final court of appeal, does Orthodoxy have any choice but to simply accept diversity on many of the burning ethical questions now confronting us? Can Orthodoxy speak authoritatively to any of them?
For the past two years I have struggled to discern whether to remain an Anglican (in some form or another) or to embrace either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism make mutually exclusive claims to be the one and true Church of Jesus Christ. We are confronted by a stark either/or choice. An Anglican is tempted to retreat to a branch theory of the Church, and on that basis make a decision on which tradition appeals to him most; but both Orthodoxy and Catholicism emphatically reject all such branch theories. There is only one visible Church. To become either Orthodox or Catholic means accepting the claim of the respective communion to ecclesial exclusivity. How do we rightly judge between them?
One thing we cannot do. We cannot pretend that we can assume a neutral vantage point. Oh how much easier things would be for all of us if God would call us on our telephones right now and tell us what to do!
The Pope convenes the College of Cardinals in emergency session. “I’ve got some good news and some bad news,” he says. “The good news is this: I just received a phone call from God!” Everyone cheers. “But here’s the bad news: God lives in Salt Lake City.”
I cannot see the Church from God’s perspective. I am faced with a choice. Good arguments can be presented for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism; none appear to be absolutely decisive and coercive. Moreoever, considerations that seem important to me are probably irrelevant to the large majority of people. “The Church is a house with a hundred gates,” wrote Chesterton; “and no two men enter at exactly the same angle.” Finally, I can only rely upon my reason, my intuitions, my feelings, my faith, under the grace and mercy of God. May God forgive me if I have chosen wrongly.
(cont)
Brethren, I think we have reached an impasse. It is apparent that the Holy Roman Church and Holy Orthodoxy simply don't believe the same thing with regard to the state of man at conception after the Fall, It is conceivable to me that it is likely that we don't believe the same thing about the pre-Fall state of man either. Such a fundamental difference in our beliefs about human nature and our varying understandings of what the Greek Fathers wrote about lead me to believe that we have gone about as far as we can here.
It is not that God can only save the Baptized. God can do whatsoever He might wish. Rather, it is that He has revealed to us that the way of salvation is open through Baptism, and He has purposefully not revealed another way. The Holy Fathers are not holding God hostage, they are universally witnessing His message.
As soon as we start making a philosophical speculation out of revelation, especially regarding the means of salvation, we fall off the tracks and start disdaining infant Baptism, Apostolate, and Mission as but trifles, instead of urgent necessities for humanity that God has commanded us to do as acts of sprititual mercy to our more ignorant brethren who do not yet know the Lord Jesus.
The juridical necessity is not upon God, but upon us! Baptism is a necessity of means for salvation for us. Without Baptism no one is saved.
"'They had need,' he [the Shepherd] said, 'to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God except by putting away the mortality of their former lives.'" (Shepherd of Hermas, Parables, 9.16.2, AD 140)"It is necessary to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the inheritance of the promised good things may be yours. There is not other way than this: acknowledge this Christ, be washed in the washing announced by Isaias for the forgiveness of sins; and henceforth live sinlessly." (St. Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 44, AD 155)
"It is in fact prescribed that no one can attain to salvation without Baptism, especially in view of that declaration of the Lord, who says: 'Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life,' (cf. John 3:5)" (Tertullian, Baptism, 12.1, AD 203)
"Listen to David when he says, 'I was conceived', so it runs, 'in iniquity and in sin my mother hath borne me', proving that every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. This is the reason for that saying which we have already quoted above, 'No man is clean from sin, not even if his life be one day long'. And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous." (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8.3, AD 244)
"The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Origen, Commentaries on Romans, 5.9, AD 244)
"And He says, `Unless a man be born again' - and He adds the words 'of water and the Spirit, - he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' (John 3:5). He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus Who has declared it." (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3.4, AD 350)
"If any man does not receive Baptism, he does not have salvation." (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3.10, AD 350)
"For necessary things God has made exceedingly easy also. The earthly birth which is according to the flesh, is of the dust, and therefore heaven is walled against it, for what has earth in common with heaven? But that other, which is of the Spirit, easily unfolds to us the arches above. Hear, as many of you as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful the sentence. 'It is not possible,' He says, 'for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven' (cf. John 3:5); because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, or perdition, he has not yet received his Lord's token, he is a stranger and an alien, he has not the royal watchword. 'Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.' (John 3:5) ... That the need for water is absolute and indispensible, you may learn this way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says; 'Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?' (Acts 10.47) ... For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven. One has Christ for his King; the other, sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other that meat which decays and perishes; one has worms for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other. Since we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion? ... We risk no common danger; for if it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence unbaptized, though we have 10,000 virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. John, 25.1-3, AD 391)
"Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be apt to teach; patient towards the wicked, firm and faithful in teaching the word? How many difficulties herein. Moreover the loss of others is imputed to him. I need say no more. If but one dies without baptism, does it not entirely endanger his salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil as no man can understand. If the salvation of one soul is of such importance that , for its sake, the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of the penalty the loss of one soul will entail. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies in Acts of the Apostles, 3, AD 400)
"The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ's blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved; ... For no one ascends into the kingdom of Heaven except by the Sacrament of Baptism. ... 'Unless one by born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' (John 3:5). No one is excepted: neither the infant nor one prevented by any necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom." (St. Ambrose, On Abraham, 2.11.79 and 84, AD 387)
"In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: In Baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized." (St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, 7.15, AD 395)
"It is an excellent thing that the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but 'salvation', and the Sacrament of Christ's body nothing else but 'life'. Whence does this derive, except from the ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too." (St. Augustine, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, 1.24.34, AD 412)
"Canon 2. Likewise, it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mother's wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism 'unto the remission of sins' is understood as not true, but false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: 'Through one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned' (Romans 5.12), must not be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration." (Second Council of Mileum, AD 416)
"But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. For unless they shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man and shall have drunk His blood, they shall not have life in them (cf. John 6:54). But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism." (Pope St. Innocent I, Epistle 30.5, Inter caeteras Romanae, To the Council of Milevis, January 27, AD 417)
"Furthermore we believe that only the baptized have the path of salvation." (Gennadius of Marseilles, A Book Concerning Church Dogmas, 74)
"Since by transgression of the first man the whole progeny of the human race is vitiated, no one can be freed from the condition of the old man except by the Sacrament of the Baptism of Christ." (Pope St. Leo the Great, Epistle 15.10)
Alexi Khomiakov
As you wish. God bless.
Isn't that a 4th century interpretation based on the Vulgate translation?
Yes. Thank you.
An infant is born into the world sick in both soul and body, desperately needing a physician. How do *you* suppose that Christ is going to look at that child: as an enemy or a friend? Or would the distinction or classification be a meaningless one to Christ?
It is meaningless to Christ, but very meaningful to the infant. The Lord Jesus loves all mankind, saints and sinners, born and unborn.
But not all are saved, nor are all friends of God.
This is not the fault of God, but the fault of ourselves and of Adam.
God is not the enemy of the newborn child, nor of any man, nor is that the question I asked you. But the newborn child, as yet unbaptized and unilluminated is the enemy of God, just as every man without grace is, since they are all citizens of the kingdom of Satan, and live under his power and reign. Children are not made holy merely by being born into a Christian home, or even merely by being conceived and born, as some have vainly taught.
In the Roman Baptismal Liturgy, we pray:
"Go out of him thou unclean spirit and give place to the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete." (First Exorcism)"Free him from the snares of Satan which until now have held him." (First Laying on of Hands)
"I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father + and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost +, that thou go forth and depart from this servant of God N., for he who commands thee, accursed spirit, is He who walked upon the sea and stretched forth His right hand to Peter as he sank. Therefore, accursed spirit, acknowledge thy sentence; give honor to the true and living God, to His Son Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Ghost, by withdrawing from this servant of God N. And this sign of the Holy Cross + which we put upon his forehead, do thou, accursed spirit, never dare to violate." (Second Exorcism)
"I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name of God the Father almighty + and in the name of Jesus Christ His Son + and in the power of the Holy Ghost +, that thou depart from this creature of God N. whom our Lord has vouchsafed to call to His holy temple, that he may become the temple of the livigin God, and that the Holy Ghost may dwell in him." (Third Exorcism)
"[The Priest mositens his themb and touches the child's ears saying] Ephpheta, which is: Be thou open [then he touches the nostrils] to the sweet fragrence about you. As for you, evil spirit, begone; for the judgement of God shall draw near." (Ephpheta - cf. St. Mark 7.32-35)
"[Priest] Do you renounce Satan? [Godparent, speaking for the child] I do renounce him." (Roman Liturgy, Sacrament of Baptism, Renunciation of Satan)
I know that similar prayers are in the Orthodox/Byzantine Baptismal liturgy:
"The Lord rebukes you, Satan ... Be afraid, depart and keep away from this creature and never dare to return or hide yourself within him; lie not in wait for him nor scheme against him neither during the night nor during the day, neither in the morning nor at the noonday, but depart into your own dark abyss until the great day of judgment prepared for you! ... Begone and depart from the sealed and newly enlisted warrior of Christ our God; for I rebuke you by Him who walks on the wings of the wind and who makes the winds His messengers and flaming fire His servants. Begone and depart from this creature together with all your power and your angels." (First Exorcism)"Deliver now this creature from slavery to the enemy and receive him into Your heavenly kingdom. ... Drive out from him, 0 Lord, every evil and unclean spirit hiding and lurking in his heart the spirit of deceit, the spirit of wickedness, the spirit of idolatry and all greed, the spirit of untruth and every impurity brought about by the prompting of the devil." (Second Exrocism)
"[Priest] Do you renounce Satan, and all his works, and all his angels and all his service, and all his pride? [Godparent, speaking for the infant] I do renounce him." (Renunication of Satan)
"Look, 0 Lord, upon this Your creature and upon this water and grant it the grace of redemption and the blessing of Jordan. Make it a fountain of incorruption, a gift of sanctification for the forgiveness of sins, a healing of sicknesses, the destruction of demons, impregnable to hostile powers, and filled with angelic strength. Let those who would like to ensnare Your creature flee from this water. For we have called upon Your Name, 0 Lord, which is wondrous, and glorious and fearful to the enemy. May all the enemy powers be crushed by the sign of Your Cross." (Blessing of the Water)
"Therefore, 0 Lord, bless this oil through the power, action and descent of Your Holy Spirit, that it may be an anointing of incorruptibility, a weapon of righteousness, and a renewal of soul and body, turning away every work of the devil. May it deliver from all evil those who are anointed with it in faith and partake of it." (Blessing of the Oil)
But you know that already, don't you? I'm not sure why you would refer me to your own Baptismal Liturgy as you did, to somehow prove the child is not born an enemy of God and in league with Satan, when it contains such forceful language of rebuke to the evil one.
Clearly every child is born enthralled to Satan, otherwise, we would not exorcise the child before baptizing him, an Apostolic practice that the Fathers witness to. Were he left to his own devices and not Baptized and brought up a Christian, he would go from bad to worse, piling up sins upon his head and rushing into a headlong folly towards an orgy of destruction and death first towards others and then to himself.
You keep trying to bring this back to the will of God, and His universal love, as if that were all that mattered. If that were all that mattered, the Devil and Judas would be rejoicing now in the sight of the Lord, and no one would ever be lost, nor would there be any purpose to the entire Christian message.
What truly matters is the universal hatred of unbaptized humanity for God because of our mortality and rage at not being free to do whatsoever we wish: "You shall be as gods"; due to which God came down to save us from ourselves.
Or again are all of these questions and distinctions irrelevant?
These questions and distinctions are only irrelevant if we believe that all that matters in life is God's love for us, and not our behavior and love - or lack thereof - towards God.
It is funny that the Orthodox, who are so forthright in defending human free will, should fall back upon the universal love of God when confronted with questions regarding the state of humanity at birth, as if all that mattered were the will of God, and not also the will of man.
The question is really very simple. If humanity is not born at enmity with God, then it could only be born in a state of mutual love, and there is little reason for God to have come down to save, since He would only be saving what is already His, rather than going to seek and save the lost. This is the absurd folly of Pelagius and Celestius, that was condemned many times by the Church, including at the Council of Ephesus.
Patristic Interpretation of the Protoevangelium - Rev. Dominic J. Unger, OFM Cap
The Marian interpretation of the First-gospel, in the sense that "the Woman" as virgin mother of the Messiah, is Mary, in closest association with Him precisely because of the virginal motherhood, rests on a most solid foundation in the ancient Christian writers.
Well, I tried to step out of this thread some time back thinking it had reached an impasse, but ended up jumping back in for reasons I can't now remember. We've had some more interesting discussion since then, but I think that this is probably a good stopping point for me for now. Best wishes to all, and I have no doubt that we'll have other good chats down the road...
No. The concept of Limbo as a "third place" between heaven and hell is a Pelagian fantasy that St. Augustine (among others) condemned.
"Canon 3. It has been decided that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' (St. John 14.12): that it might be understood that in the Kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' (St. John 3.5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner with the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run to the left." (16th Council of Carthage, AD 418)
"Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of rest and happines, such as he pleases and wherever he pleases, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven. This is what the Pelagian heresy promised them." (St. Augustine, "The Soul and Its Origin", 1.9.11, AD 419)
The concept of Limbo as taught by the Doctors of the Church such as St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, is a portion of hell (since the unbaptized are not saved, and heaven consists of all and only the saved), but the denizens of this state are not in eternal torment, as are actual sinners, since they have no sins to be punished for. They certainly suffer a loss of the vision of God, but St. Thomas notes that they are not pained by this loss since it was something entirely above their ability to ever obtain given the circumstances of their short lfie. Therefore they do not grieve and do not have the worm of conscience.
How does a God of Perfect Love and Perfect mercy fit with the concept of this eternal damnation?
God is not the cause of the damnation. It is not from a defect in His Perfect Love or Mercy that some are lost.
Damnation is our own infernal invention, and it is from this horror that God came to save us. And the full horror of it can only be truly seen when we realize that even a little infant, having done nothing wrong, if unbaptized will depart from this life deprived forever of the vision of God. If it were not so horrible, God would not have worked such great wonders in His Son on our behalf.
This is also the full horror of abortion, which deprives countless souls of any chance to come to know the Lord Jesus. If little unborn and unbaptized children are undoubtedly or even probably saved, abortion would hardly be so unspeakable a crime that the Church excommunicates all involved in it (formerly even denying them communion at death regardless of repentance - see Canon 63 of the Council of Elvira).
The state of mortal sin is the state of being deprived of sanctifying grace.
Dying in such a state after commiting actual mortal sins earns eternal torments as the just punishment of personal wrongdoing.
OTOH, dying in such a state merely due to original sin causes one no harm other than failing to gain the glorification of seeing God, since such a person has done nothing to merit punishment (the fire of hell), but neither have they done anything to merit reward (the vision of God).
Our inability to see God since the time of Adam's sin is not a punishment, but an inevitable consequence of Adam's actions in adultering the purity of our heart, since "the imaginations and thought of man's heart are prone to evil from his youth" (Genesis 8.21).
The beatific vision is promised to the "clean of heart" (St. Matthew 5.8), which is why St. David begs the Lord "create in me a clean heart" (Psalms 50.12), knowing "How God is God to Israel, to them that are of a clean heart" (Psalm 72.1), and "Who shall ascent into the mountain of the Lord: or who shall stand in His holy place? The innocent in hands, and clean of heart, who hath not taken his soul in vain." (Palsam 23.3-4)
The impure heart cannot see God. But God promised to cure disease of the human heart we have suffered from since the time of Adam, and His method is perfectly clear.
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, by which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit: and why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezekiel 18.31)
And: "I will pout upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and give you a heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36.25-26)
And: "And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me all days: and that it may be well with them, and with their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, and will not cease o do them good: and I will give m fear in their heart, that they may not revolt from me." (Jeremiah 32.38-40)
The state of man prior to the fall is one of theological speculation, since there is little in the way of revelation on this matter. I don't feel the state of man at conception after the fall is believed so differently.
We all believe (it appears) that man is born without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their soul, without the guilt of personal sin, and inevitably bound to suffer and die and incline to sin. I'm not sure what you feel we disagree on unless you cannot agree to one or more the three points above.
The rest, such as how God judges the unbaptized or wh is ultimately accounted as unbaptized, is all so much speculation.
Let's look at this another way: the Jews did not think so. They understand that all the wickedness of man comes from his free will and believe that anyone who wants to be"good" is acceptable to God.
The Orthodox believe that we are sick and in need of spiritual healing, because the knowledge of God is inscribed in our hearts.
Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians believe our soul is dead and we cannot do anything without God's sanctifying grace.
So, the Jews believe salvation is entirely in our hands (by choosing to obey God); the Orthodox believe salvation is attainable through a cooperative healing process (theosis) with God; Roman Catholics believe that our sanctification is somehow imputed through Sacraments and that obedience to the Church is the same as salvation; the Protestants (at least the mainline ones) believe that God "saves us" when we accept Jesus as our Lord.
This is of course oversimplification, however intended for an overview. If knowing and loving God without baptism is not possible, then how could prophets be inspired and what happened to God's unconditional love for humanity? I am convinced that there are many non-Christians in the world who believe in and love God even if they don't know Him on a personal level as we do through Jesus Christ.
To say that none of them can be saved is beyond our mission on earth. We were told to baptize in the name of the Trinity. That is our mission. As to what happens to humanity is in God's loving hands.
I think Kolokotronis is right: we may use similar words, but we do not believe in our hearts the same thing. We also share one millennium, so similarities in concepts and terminology, sharing of many of the early Fathers, etc. is deceptive, leading some to assume that our semantic and theological nuances are hairsplitting.
We are not the same Church. We will never be the same Church unless one forsakes everything and that will not happen. It is noble of the Pope to call for union, but I honestly think it is more his wish than he could possibly believe.
Thats' why this discussion has come to an impasse. Not because we have exhausted all and read all, but because it is clear -- to the Orthodox side at least -- that we are sharing two different faiths. We recognize your differences; we can live with that; but not with you.
The purpose of these discussions is not to anathematize the other side. They develop out of curiosity to find out more about these differences and how we really differ. Once we realize we are not the same faith down to the very core, it is obvious that we have reached an impasse on that subject. Hopefully we both walk away from these posts with a better understanding of our differences.
ping to my last post...sorry cut and paste didn't work fully :-)
You are confusing Protestantism with Catholicism here. Imputed righteousness is pure Protestantism :)
If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, 11)
This is of course oversimplification, however intended for an overview.
Actually, its a total caricature and misrepresentation. Protestants are the ones who believe in imputed sanctification. Catholics reject and anathematize that view. See Chapter 7 of the Decree on Justification and its attendant Canons 10 and 11 from Trent.
We believe sanctification is a process whereby man cooperates with God to receive actual justice normally communicated via the sacraments of the Church and prayer. The Lord commands us asTrent notes "Prepare your hearts unto the Lord", so this is hardly God working wonders on His own apart from us, and we clearly have a problem at the root of our being requiring our joint diligent attention. Justification or Sanctification if you will is "a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour" (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 4). In other words, it changes us inwardly from a deranged sinner to an upright son of the Most High.
The statement that "obedience to the Church is salvation" is so laughable I am not even sure how to address it. Certainly if we purposefully disobey the Church, we will not have salvation, since we would be sinning. But salvation itself is from faith and grace, not obedience to laws or establishements. Salvation is the knowledge of Jesus Christ that impels us to love Him, gained through our divine filiation as adopted sons of God.
If knowing and loving God without baptism is not possible, then how could prophets be inspired and what happened to God's unconditional love for humanity?
The first question is simple, the Prophets lived prior to Christ, so they could hardly need or share in His Baptism. They had other means of sanctification, the ceremonies of the Law, if they were Jews, and for the pagan masses, the natural religion left to Adam and Noah if they were Gentiles. And they certainly were able to know God, since He had already revealed Himself both personally to the Prophets in many theophanies and in general to the masses through revelation and wonders.
The second question is also simple. The need for Baptism occurs at the promulgation of the Gospel. It would hardly be just of God to hold us to a requirement that we are unable to physically meet since the Salvation in Christ is not yet preached among us. So the American Indians, for example, could be saved prior to their meeting the Spanish missionairies on these shores, if they followed the natural religion and the unwritten law upon their hearts. And when they met the Spanish Missionaries, the already just among them quickly recognized the truth of the words, which is how so many came to so quickly be converted, sometimes even impelled by inner faith to come immediately to them for reception as Christians. A story is told of Bl. Junipero Serra that when he was founding the San Antonio mission in central California:
They chose this place to begin their third mission. The Fathers took a bronze bell from a mule’s pack and hung it on a lower branch of an oak tree. Father Serra rang the bell and cried out, “Oh ye gentiles! Come, come to the Holy Church! Come to receive the faith of Jesus Christ!” A curious Indian boy witnessed Serra’s actions and went to tell his tribe what he had seen and heard. Later that day, he returned with many from his tribe. ... Most of the Indians chose to stay at the mission for three reasons. One reason was because of the legends told about the arrival of religious leaders." (http://www.standley.org/browse.php?table=Articles&id=31&ids=31&rows=1&cols=1)
The issue with this means of salvation is its apparent difficulty in comparison with Baptism and the liberty of the Christian from legalism. "Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more." Not every tribe of heathens had the faith and love of God that the Indians Bl. Junipero met in California had. If the situation of humanity without the Gospel is not merely adequate for salvation but also normally possible for most people, rather than dire, the need for Christ to save us is entirely diminished. The fact is that we desperately needed Christ and his Grace and His Church to "make straight the way of the Lord".
I am convinced that there are many non-Christians in the world who believe in and love God even if they don't know Him on a personal level as we do through Jesus Christ.
Undoubtedly there are. Romans 2.5-16. But what then of the exclusivity Christ preached? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no once comes to the Father but by Me" (St. John 14.6) and "This is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (St. John 17.3). And the Apostles? "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4.12).
So while God will render "glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2.10-11), all the same, there is a necessity upon coming to a knowledge of our Most Holy Redeemer in His Church. It is not for us to resolve this tension in some systemized way. It is for us to resolve it by sharing the Gospel with the ignorant.
To say that none of them can be saved is beyond our mission on earth. We were told to baptize in the name of the Trinity. That is our mission. As to what happens to humanity is in God's loving hands.
I don't disagree. "No salvation outside the Church" is a warning to ourselves, not a threat to non-Christians who have never heard the Gospel.
Thats' why this discussion has come to an impasse. Not because we have exhausted all and read all, but because it is clear -- to the Orthodox side at least -- that we are sharing two different faiths. We recognize your differences; we can live with that; but not with you.
No, it really appears to us that you are attributing all of the worst errors of Protestantism regarding original sin, justification, and the like to the Catholic faith, then remarking how different it all is from what you believe.
I am really at a loss as to how we could discuss things for so long, and come right back to such a mistaken statement about what Catholics believe.
Thank you for your interesting and brotherly discussion.
ORTHODOX CONFESSION OF THE FAITHSt. Peter Mohila, approved by the Council of Kiev, 1640, the Council of Jassy, 1642, all the Orthodox Patriarchs, 1643, and the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672.
Part One.
Q. 24. Are all men subject to the same sin of Adam?
R. Just as all men were in the state of innocence with Adam, so when he sinned, all men sinned in him and have remained in that state of sin. They are subject, therefore, not only to sin but also the punishment for sin, which is expressed in God's decree: "On whatever day you shall eat of it, you will die the death." Repeating the same, the holy Apostle says: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin - death, so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned." For this reason we are conceived in the maternal womb and born even today in this sin, as the Psalmist says: "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me." This sin is called original for these reasons: first, because before this time man was stained by no sin, although the devil sinned, through whose initiative the sin known as original arose in man. Adam, the perpetrator of the sin, is subject to it as also are we, his posterity. Secondly, it is called original because no man is conceived without it.
Part Three.
Q. 19. Into how many parts is mortal sin divided?
R. One type of mortal sin is original, the other is acquired for ourselves or made.Q. 20. What is original sin?
R. Original sin is the breaking of the divine law given to Adam, our ancestor, in Paradise, when it was said: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat. For on whatever day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death." This original sin passed from Adam into the whole nature of man, for we were all in Adam; and so, sin passed to all of us through this one Adam. Wherefore, we are conceived and we are born in this sin, as Sacred Scripture teaches: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." This original sin can be erased by no penance, but is destroyed only by the grace of God because of the merits and the shedding of the most precious blood of Jesus Christ our Lord; and this comes about through the sacrament, to be sure, of holy baptism. For whoever is not baptized, is not free from sin, but is the son of wrath and eternal condemnation, according to the saying: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."CONFESSION OF DOSITHEUS, OR THE EIGHTEEN DECREES OF THE SYNOD OF JERUSALEM
"Against the Calvinists"
Decree VI.
We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder ... for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, in fine, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.
Decree XVI.
We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord saith, “Whosoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord shewed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whosoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Saviour would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised. ...
And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins whatsoever which the baptised may have committed. Secondly, it delivereth him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin, as for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it giveth to such immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it maketh them temples of God.
THE LONGER CATECHISM OF THE ORTHODOX, CATHOLIC, EASTERN CHURCH.
Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and Published for the Use of Schools, and of all Orthodox Christians, by Order of His Imperial Majesty. (Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1830.)
154. In what sense is it said that the Son of God came down from heaven for us men?
In this sense: that he came upon earth not for one nation, nor for some men only, but for us men universally.155. To save men from what did he come upon earth?
From sin, the curse, and death.158. How did sin pass from the devil to men?
The devil deceived Eve and Adam, and induced them to transgress God's commandment.164. What came of Adam's sin?
The curse, and death.165. What is the curse?
The condemnation of sin by God's just judgment, and the evil which from sin came upon the earth for the punishment of men. God said to Adam, Cursed is the ground for thy sake. Gen. iii. 17.166. What is the death which came from the sin of Adam?
It is twofold: bodily, when the body loses the soul which quickened it; and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God, which quickened it with the higher and spiritual life.167. Can the soul, then, die as well as the body?
It can die, but not so as the body. The body, when it dies, loses sense, and is dissolved; the soul, when it dies by sin, loses spiritual light, joy, and happiness, but is not dissolved nor annihilated, but remains in a state of darkness, anguish, and suffering.168. Why did not the first man only die, and not all, as now?
Because all have come of Adam since his infection by sin, and all sin themselves. As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal.169. How is this spoken of in holy Scripture?
By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. v. 12.208. How does the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin, the curse, and death?
That we may the more readily believe this mystery, the Word of God teaches us of it, so much as we may be able to receive, by the comparison of Jesus Christ with Adam. Adam is by nature the head of all mankind, which is one with him by natural descent from him. Jesus Christ, in whom the Godhead is united with manhood, graciously made himself the new almighty Head of men, whom he unites to himself through faith. Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death.288. What is Baptism?
Baptism is a Sacrament, in which a man who believes, having his body thrice plunged in water in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, dies to the carnal life of sin, and is born again of the Holy Ghost to a life spiritual and holy. Except a, man be born of water and, of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. John iii. 5.296. Why before baptizing do we use exorcism?
To drive away the devil, who since Adam's fall has had access to men, and power over them, as his captives and slaves.
The Apostle Paul says, that all men, without grace, walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. Eph. ii. 2.
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.