The Eastern Orthodox Church followed the teachings of Pelagius and John Cassian (a follower of Pelagius and one who emphasized "semi-Pelagius"). As I've stated many times on this board, it isn't surprising the Roman Church is identifying with the eastern Church. They have embraced the semi-Pelegius views which at one time was rejected by the Church as heresy.
The idea that Christ merely was a symbol of perfect love acting out His obedience to the Father may be rooted in eastern teachings but it certainly was not part of western teachings. Augustine view (especially late in life) which he received from the early teachings of Cyprian, was that man was saved to do good works. We don't do good works to be saved. A subtle but important difference. He condemned semi-Pelagius and fought very hard against it. The Church embraced it at the Council of Trent.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that "having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case," they say, "He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world." Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. "But we say," say they, "that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work." But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, "We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things." [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;" [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: "Not of works, but of Him that calleth" [Rom. 9.12.]
HarleyD:
Lets be clear about what Pelegians theory is. It is that Man can, without God’s Grace, come to know God and thus become justified. In other words, Man could come to Know God and follow him thru unaided human power. It is in this context that Pelagius and his Doctrine was rejected. This view is Rejected by the Catholic Church and has been since the 5th century. Man can only have Faith because of God’s Grace and Man can only live the Theological virtures of Faith, Hope and Love, because of God’s Grace.
The Catholic position of Justification rejects any notion that justication comes about through and inwardness or merely disposition but also objects to the mere performance of a physical act without and inward disposition to Faith, Hope and Love. What is necessary for salvation is a faith that represents itself externally through acts of Love and internally through Faith.
St. Augustine believed in Infused or Imparted Grace for Justification, hence is strong statements on Baptism versus Pelagius and his followers. In fact, St. Augustine stressed Baptism as the Sacrament of Grace as the starting point of Justification to such a degree against Pelagius [The Doctrine of Original Sin was also more cleary developed because of the Pelagius Controvery] that Pelagius posed the question as the fate of unbaptized Infants. It is in the context of that discussion that St. Augustine “Proposed” Limbo. Now, note that Limbo was a Theological theory that was proposed to Pelagius and his followers question regarding the fate of unbaptized infants and because it was St. Augustine’s theory, it was taught, not as Dogma/Doctrine, but a Theological Theory even until the time I was a kid.
It is still a plausible theory but one that does not seem to the the predominate one in Catholic Theology today. In fact, the Catechism issued in 1992 seems to allow for the possibility but tends to rest on Hope that God in His Mercy will Save those infants who died without Baptism [CCC paragraph 1261]