OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 11:34:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why is "What do Catholics believe?" such a difficult question?  (Read 4182 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« on: February 01, 2012, 05:27:21 PM »

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,636



« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2012, 05:39:21 PM »

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.

Same reason why it is such a hard question for the Orthodox or the Lutherans: they are all communities made of people, not theological automata.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2012, 05:47:33 PM »

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.

Same reason why it is such a hard question for the Orthodox or the Lutherans: they are all communities made of people, not theological automata.


This is partly true, I think.  The other part of the answer that it is *not* difficult to answer, and here's what we believe:

I believe in one God, the Father almighty,

    maker of heaven and earth,

    of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

        the Only Begotten Son of God,

        born of the Father before all ages.

    God from God, Light from Light,

        true God from true God,

    begotten, not made, consubstantial

       with the Father;

        Through him all things were made.

    For us men and for our salvation

        he came down from heaven,

        and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate

        of the Virgin Mary,

        and became man.

 

    For our sake he was crucified

      under Pontius Pilate,

        he suffered death and was buried,

        and rose again on the third day

        in accordance with the Scriptures.

    He ascended into heaven

        and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

    He will come again in glory

        to judge the living and the dead

        and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

        the Lord, the giver of life,

    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

    who with the Father and the Son

        is adored and glorified,

        who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic,

     and apostolic Church.

    I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins

        and I look forward to the resurrection

        of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Amen.


But, you knew that  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2012, 06:03:04 PM »

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.
Well...the Church has teachings on many things, but there are areas that are not dogmatically defined where theologians may adopt varying opinions. An example of this would be the fate of unbaptized infants. The Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, but original sin in and off itself does not send the soul to hell. Because of this, some theologians have said that infants go to limbo. Others say that it is possible that God saves them outside the Sacrament in a way known only to himself. God works through the Sacraments to bring people to salvation, but He is not bound by the Sacraments because He is God.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 06:03:27 PM by Wyatt » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2012, 07:31:20 PM »

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.

Same reason why it is such a hard question for the Orthodox or the Lutherans: they are all communities made of people, not theological automata.

Neither the Orthodox nor Lutherans have a single visible head empowered to speak infallibly on matters of doctrine, 22 (?) Ecumenical Councils, and a unitary administration able to publish documents (like the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that officially speak for the entire church. While Roman Catholics are not theological automata, they do have a formal Magesterium which should make it relatively easy to answer 'what does the Roman Church teach about x' (including those cases where it's not covered in any of the above and so the RC position is that there is no official position and individuals may believe what they want).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2012, 11:28:36 PM »

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.

Same reason why it is such a hard question for the Orthodox or the Lutherans: they are all communities made of people, not theological automata.

Neither the Orthodox nor Lutherans have a single visible head empowered to speak infallibly on matters of doctrine, 22 (?) 21 Ecumenical Councils, and a unitary administration able to publish documents (like the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that officially speak for the entire church.

True, but a certain parallel could be drawn nevertheless: Just as a Catholic can say "That isn't our official teaching, because it has never been official declared" a Lutheran or other Protestant can say "That isn't our official teaching, because it isn't in the bible."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2012, 11:38:49 PM »

Because at times there is a glaring contradiction between what the modern Catholic Church teaches and teachings contained in papal encyclicals and conciliar documents from Trent to Vatican II. It's a touchy subject because logic dictates that if that is true, then the Church was either wrong then, or it's wrong now. Not a comfortable position to be in. 
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 11:39:22 PM by Paisius » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2012, 12:59:18 AM »

Well...the Church has teachings on many things, but there are areas that are not dogmatically defined where theologians may adopt varying opinions. An example of this would be the fate of unbaptized infants.

Catholic theologians, now that Limbo has been discarded, do not know what happens with unbaptized children (those under the age of reason, usually placed at 7.)  The Catechism para 1261 says that Catholics may hope for their salvation. But one imagines that that still leaves open the possibility that they go to hell.

Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2012, 12:04:38 PM »

Well...the Church has teachings on many things, but there are areas that are not dogmatically defined where theologians may adopt varying opinions. An example of this would be the fate of unbaptized infants.

Catholic theologians, now that Limbo has been discarded, do not know what happens with unbaptized children (those under the age of reason, usually placed at 7.)  The Catechism para 1261 says that Catholics may hope for their salvation. But one imagines that that still leaves open the possibility that they go to hell.



Here is the full paragraph:

 "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 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 little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

And here is what the Catechism says about hell:

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

    Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":621

    Father, accept this offering
    from your whole family.
    Grant us your peace in this life,
    save us from final damnation,
    and count us among those you have chosen.622

While I would grant that there is a "possibility" that those unbaptized children might go to hell, unless they were culpable of "a willful turning away from God...", I would venture to say that that possibility is fairly remote.  It should be clear from reading what the Catechism says, that certain conditions must be met before any soul is condemned to hell.  As no one but God actually knows who is condemned to hell and who is not, to say that we do not know is not only truthful, but totally honest.  Or so I would think.

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?  In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2012, 05:05:38 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason? 

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?

Well...the Church has teachings on many things, but there are areas that are not dogmatically defined where theologians may adopt varying opinions. An example of this would be the fate of unbaptized infants.

Catholic theologians, now that Limbo has been discarded, do not know what happens with unbaptized children (those under the age of reason, usually placed at 7.)  The Catechism para 1261 says that Catholics may hope for their salvation. But one imagines that that still leaves open the possibility that they go to hell.



Here is the full paragraph:

 "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 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 little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

And here is what the Catechism says about hell:

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

    Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":621

    Father, accept this offering
    from your whole family.
    Grant us your peace in this life,
    save us from final damnation,
    and count us among those you have chosen.622

While I would grant that there is a "possibility" that those unbaptized children might go to hell, unless they were culpable of "a willful turning away from God...", I would venture to say that that possibility is fairly remote.  It should be clear from reading what the Catechism says, that certain conditions must be met before any soul is condemned to hell.  As no one but God actually knows who is condemned to hell and who is not, to say that we do not know is not only truthful, but totally honest.  Or so I would think.

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?  In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2012, 05:09:29 PM »

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?  In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?

There is not.  Much of our faith has never been "formalised."  We tend to live and believe by our tradition which will be formalised in Councils only when necessary, when heretics disturb the faith of the Church.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2012, 05:17:55 PM »

Quote
Why is "What do Catholics believe?" such a difficult question?

In message 231
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42694.new.html

Delphine has some great insights into the question asked in this thread


* * *

Also please see message 1044
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044

It has some insights into the current state of flux in some Catholic beliefs.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 05:20:43 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2012, 05:18:35 PM »

As you know, I am neither a theologian nor a scholar nor an academic nor a catechist.  I can only answer in a very limited way based on my own understanding, which may, of course, be very flawed.  Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I will be able to answer more completely.

1.  "Is the Catechism wrong?"--I doubt it.

2.  "Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion."--We *do*??  I thought only God knows who goes to heaven and who does not.  But, what do I know?

3.  "But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?"---Don't know.

4.  "And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?"---Don't know.  You are the one who claims it to be fact, and pronounces the Catechism to be incorrect. 


Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?



I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?

Well...the Church has teachings on many things, but there are areas that are not dogmatically defined where theologians may adopt varying opinions. An example of this would be the fate of unbaptized infants.

Catholic theologians, now that Limbo has been discarded, do not know what happens with unbaptized children (those under the age of reason, usually placed at 7.)  The Catechism para 1261 says that Catholics may hope for their salvation. But one imagines that that still leaves open the possibility that they go to hell.



Here is the full paragraph:

 "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 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 little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

And here is what the Catechism says about hell:

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

    Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":621

    Father, accept this offering
    from your whole family.
    Grant us your peace in this life,
    save us from final damnation,
    and count us among those you have chosen.622

While I would grant that there is a "possibility" that those unbaptized children might go to hell, unless they were culpable of "a willful turning away from God...", I would venture to say that that possibility is fairly remote.  It should be clear from reading what the Catechism says, that certain conditions must be met before any soul is condemned to hell.  As no one but God actually knows who is condemned to hell and who is not, to say that we do not know is not only truthful, but totally honest.  Or so I would think.

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?  In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 05:46:52 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2012, 05:38:12 PM »


Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?

I have never encountered anything definitive. 
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2012, 05:40:17 PM »


Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?

I have never encountered anything definitive. 

So, the Orthodox Church does not know what happens to unbaptized infants who die.  Correct?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2012, 05:47:47 PM »


Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?

I have never encountered anything definitive.  

So, the Orthodox Church does not know what happens to unbaptized infants who die.  Correct?

I have never met any of the faithful who did not believe they are saved and will enter heaven with all of us at the Last Judgement.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 05:55:47 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2012, 06:02:26 PM »


Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?

I have never encountered anything definitive.  

So, the Orthodox Church does not know what happens to unbaptized infants who die.  Correct?

I have never met any of the faithful who did not believe they are saved.and will enter heaven with all of us at the Last Judgement.


So...let me get this right---All the faithful whom you have met *believe* (same as *know*?) that unbaptized infants who die are saved and will enter heaven.  What threw me was that last clause, i.e. "with all of us at the Last Judgement".  We are *all* entering heaven?  No one is assigned to hell?  You know this how?  But there is nothing that one can point to that says something along the lines of "The Orthodox Church teaches (or knows) that all unbaptized infants who die will go to heaven" ?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2012, 06:06:10 PM »


Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?

I have never encountered anything definitive.  

So, the Orthodox Church does not know what happens to unbaptized infants who die.  Correct?

I have never met any of the faithful who did not believe they are saved.and will enter heaven with all of us at the Last Judgement.


So...let me get this right---All the faithful whom you have met *believe* (same as *know*?) that unbaptized infants who die are saved and will enter heaven.  What threw me was that last clause, i.e. "with all of us at the Last Judgement".  We are *all* entering heaven?  No one is assigned to hell?  You know this how?  But there is nothing that one can point to that says something along the lines of "The Orthodox Church teaches (or knows) that all unbaptized infants who die will go to heaven" ?


michael,

We are starting to derail this thread.  Let's look and see if this matter hass been talked about on the forum already.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2012, 06:11:49 PM »


Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?

I have never encountered anything definitive.  


So, the Orthodox Church does not know what happens to unbaptized infants who die.  Correct?

I have never met any of the faithful who did not believe they are saved.and will enter heaven with all of us at the Last Judgement.


So...let me get this right---All the faithful whom you have met *believe* (same as *know*?) that unbaptized infants who die are saved and will enter heaven.  What threw me was that last clause, i.e. "with all of us at the Last Judgement".  We are *all* entering heaven?  No one is assigned to hell?  You know this how?  But there is nothing that one can point to that says something along the lines of "The Orthodox Church teaches (or knows) that all unbaptized infants who die will go to heaven" ?


michael,

We are starting to derail this thread.  Let's look and see if this matter hass been talked about on the forum already.

No problem.  Be my guest  Wink.  I was just trying to get clarification about your statements which arose from my post in reply to your statements and questions, etc.  Should we (you) start a new thread?  That'd be fine by me Wink.

Or...maybe the mods could split the thread?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 06:13:16 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2012, 06:13:51 PM »

Bringing this back to a focus on Catholic teaching.....

From a blog with which you may be familiar....

Development and Negation VII: Original Sin as Inherited "Guilt"

Thus, it has been suggested that even allowing for the possibility of salvation for infants who die unbaptized entails tacitly abandoning the Council of Trent's teaching that we inherit the "guilt" of original sin from our first parents. Said council did after all define: “If anyone denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted … let him be anathema” (Decree on Original Sin,canon 5); such a definition would be idle without the assumption that there is such a thing as the guilt of original sin; and Trent clearly made such an assumption.

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2007/04/development-and-negation-vii-original.html
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2012, 06:22:37 PM »

Addressing the OP’s difficulty in knowing Catholic belief in some areas...

We now hear very often  “But Limbo was never a de fide belief in the first place.” This is the oft used Catholic argument when theologians wish to discard what have been traditional beliefs for centuries among the Catholic faithful, held and taught by bishops and priests as matters of faith.

Fr. Brian W. Harrison conducted a survey of relevant historical Catholic magisterial statements and concluded:

"... that those who now talk about Limbo as only ever having been a mere 'hypothesis', rather than a doctrine, are giving a very misleading impression of the state of the question. They are implying by this that the pre-Vatican II Church traditionally held, or at least implicitly admitted, that an alternate 'hypothesis' for unbaptized infants was their attainment of eternal salvation — Heaven.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. Limbo for unbaptized infants was indeed a theological "hypothesis"; but the only approved alternate hypothesis was not Heaven, but very mild hellfire as well as exclusion from the beatific vision! In short, while Limbo as distinct from very mild hellfire was a 'hypothetical' destiny for unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis.

"No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely "authentic".
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 06:23:30 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2012, 06:23:59 PM »

Bringing this back to a focus on Catholic teaching.....

From a blog with which you may be familiar....

Development and Negation VII: Original Sin as Inherited "Guilt"

Thus, it has been suggested that even allowing for the possibility of salvation for infants who die unbaptized entails tacitly abandoning the Council of Trent's teaching that we inherit the "guilt" of original sin from our first parents. Said council did after all define: “If anyone denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted … let him be anathema” (Decree on Original Sin,canon 5); such a definition would be idle without the assumption that there is such a thing as the guilt of original sin; and Trent clearly made such an assumption.

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2007/04/development-and-negation-vii-original.html


Nope, not familiar with it.  I don't have a problem re-focusing here on Catholic teaching (such as I know it), but I would like answers to my questions above.  Like I said, maybe the mods can split this thread??  I've got to log off now, or I might have started a new one.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2012, 06:26:01 PM »


Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?

I have never encountered anything definitive.  

So, the Orthodox Church does not know what happens to unbaptized infants who die.  Correct?

I have never met any of the faithful who did not believe they are saved and will enter heaven with all of us at the Last Judgement.

Father, I think J Michael asks a good question. When you say "with all of us", do you mean that literally?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2012, 06:26:56 PM »

Quote
Why is "What do Catholics believe?" such a difficult question?

In message 231
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42694.new.html

Delphine has some great insights into the question asked in this thread


* * *

Also please see message 1044
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044

It has some insights into the current state of flux in some Catholic beliefs.

Those are both great posts. The former I had read (and liked) before you mentioned it; the latter is new to me.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2012, 06:31:18 PM »

Nope, not familiar with it.  I don't have a problem re-focusing here on Catholic teaching (such as I know it), but I would like answers to my questions above.  Like I said, maybe the mods can split this thread??  I've got to log off now, or I might have started a new one.

As I have said, there is, as far as I know - no definitive teaching from any Council.  But the faith of the Church is that unbaptized children will enter heaven at the Last Judgement.

You could start a new thread, but I suspect thast when it all boils down you will have had a long and wearying thread on the Orthodox concept of ancestral sin (also not definitively defined) and the final conclusion will be no more than I have said in the first paragraph. laugh

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2012, 06:34:16 PM »

Quote
I have never met any of the faithful who did not believe they are saved.and will enter heaven with all of us at the Last Judgement.

We are *all* entering heaven?  No one is assigned to hell?  You know this how?  

"all of us" means "all of us who are entering heaven."  I think I was a bit presumptuous in including myself among them.  God forgive me.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 06:37:01 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2012, 06:50:33 PM »

Quote
I have never met any of the faithful who did not believe they are saved.and will enter heaven with all of us at the Last Judgement.

We are *all* entering heaven?  No one is assigned to hell?  You know this how?  

"all of us" means "all of us who are entering heaven."

Aha. Grin

Truth is, when I first read your statement I didn't notice anything unusual about it. It was only upon reading subsequent posts that I realized that your statement was awfully bold -- if taken literally that is.

I think I was a bit presumptuous in including myself among them.  God forgive me.

Touche.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 06:51:19 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2012, 07:18:36 PM »

Truth is, when I first read your statement I didn't notice anything unusual about it. It was only upon reading subsequent posts that I realized that your statement was awfully bold -- if taken literally that is.


I am going to side with a great Catholic Father Saint Maximus the Confessor who died in the 7th century.....

One should pray that Apokatastasis [universal salvation] is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine.
~St Maximus the Confessor

 Somewhere on the forum someone has provided a list of around 17 Church Fathers who taught universal salvation.

I think that one of the 'marks' of an Orthodox Christian psyche is an attraction to the temptation to believe in universal salvation (apokatastasis.)  While the West tends towards restrictive salvation which reaches its culmination in the horrific teaching of Calvin's double predestination,  the East has been tempted in the other direction - towards universal salvation.

The Orthodox have always been attracted to the idea of "universal salvation", that all will finally be recapitulated in Christ, both the earth-born and (possibly) the demons.  You will find this in the Early Church.  We know from Saint Augustine that it was a widely held teaching of what he calls the "fathers of the Church."  As you may imagine Saint Augustine was inclined to the opposite belief.  

It resurfaces in the writings of the 20th century Parisian school of Russian theology.  Russia's young theologian-bishop Hilarion Alfeyev is very sympathetic to the teaching and has delivered lectures on it and written on it, drawing on Saint Isaac the Syrian.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 07:25:47 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2012, 07:29:41 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 07:30:32 PM by Wyatt » Logged
sainthieu
Abstractor of the Quintessence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 621


« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2012, 07:33:06 PM »

"Liberal" Catholics believe in evil nonsense, and this is why: The CCHD and Saul Alinsky.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 07:34:15 PM by sainthieu » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2012, 07:33:22 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

The way you phrased your thoughts, how are they different then an Orthodox approach? The problem of over-thinking these things caused medieval Roman Catholic thinkers much consternation which carried over into our times.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2012, 07:35:13 PM »


Oh no, don't interject politics into this. Not all of us Orthodox drink the kool-aid of the far right so let it go.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2012, 07:37:41 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

The way you phrased your thoughts, how are they different then an Orthodox approach? The problem of over-thinking these things caused medieval Roman Catholic thinkers much consternation which carried over into our times.
You have a point. I guess such thinking is very similar to the Orthodox approach. It is kind of funny how, even with the existence of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and many things being pretty clearly defined, there is still theological wiggle room.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2012, 07:48:38 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

Wyatt,

How would you and others answer Fr Brian Harrison's words in message 20 above?

"...unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. "

It illustrates the very difficulty the OP wants discussed - doctrinal uncertainty in some areas.   Before Vatican II - unbaptized children excluded from heaven eternally.  After Vatican II, heaven was opened to them.



« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 07:49:44 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2012, 07:49:07 PM »

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.

Same reason why it is such a hard question for the Orthodox or the Lutherans: they are all communities made of people, not theological automata.

Not yet. That's on its way, especially if the Papists of the world have their way and they are.

Really, your answer should have been the end of this thread.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2012, 07:52:55 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

Wyatt,

How would you and others answer Fr Brian Harrison's words in message 20 above?

"...unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. "

It illustrates the very difficulty the OP wants discussed - doctrinal uncertainty in some areas.   Before Vatican II - unbaptized children excluded from heaven eternally.  After Vatican II, heaven was opened to them.
I would point him to the Catechism and ask him why he is at odds with what his Church teaches. I would also point out the thief on the cross who did not get a chance to be baptized, but was told by Christ Himself that he would be with Him in paradise. I would also appeal to common sense and ask him if he can actually say with a straight face that he believes that an all-merciful God, which is the Scriptures say is love, would actually condemn infants to hell.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2012, 08:00:22 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

Wyatt,

How would you and others answer Fr Brian Harrison's words in message 20 above?

"...unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. "

It illustrates the very difficulty the OP wants discussed - doctrinal uncertainty in some areas.   Before Vatican II - unbaptized children excluded from heaven eternally.  After Vatican II, heaven was opened to them.
I would point him to the Catechism and ask him why he is at odds with what his Church teaches. I would also point out the thief on the cross who did not get a chance to be baptized, but was told by Christ Himself that he would be with Him in paradise. I would also appeal to common sense and ask him if he can actually say with a straight face that he believes that an all-merciful God, which is the Scriptures say is love, would actually condemn infants to hell.


But he is not speaking of your current doctrines.  He is speaking of what was taught prior to Vatican II  - eternal exclusion from heaven -the very opposite of current teaching.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2012, 08:01:30 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

Wyatt,

How would you and others answer Fr Brian Harrison's words in message 20 above?

"...unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. "

It illustrates the very difficulty the OP wants discussed - doctrinal uncertainty in some areas.   Before Vatican II - unbaptized children excluded from heaven eternally.  After Vatican II, heaven was opened to them.
I would point him to the Catechism and ask him why he is at odds with what his Church teaches. I would also point out the thief on the cross who did not get a chance to be baptized, but was told by Christ Himself that he would be with Him in paradise. I would also appeal to common sense and ask him if he can actually say with a straight face that he believes that an all-merciful God, which is the Scriptures say is love, would actually condemn infants to hell.


But he is not speaking of your current doctrines.  He is speaking of what was taught prior to Vatican II  - eternal exclusion from heaven -the very opposite of current teaching.
I would disagree that it was ever doctrine rather than popular theological opinion of the time and would ask him to prove otherwise.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 08:02:17 PM by Wyatt » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 02, 2012, 08:06:23 PM »

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?  In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?

There is not.  Much of our faith has never been "formalised."  We tend to live and believe by our tradition which will be formalised in Councils only when necessary, when heretics disturb the faith of the Church.

I believe this answers the question for another thread:

Why is "What do Orthodox believe?" such a difficult question?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2012, 08:09:24 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

Wyatt,

How would you and others answer Fr Brian Harrison's words in message 20 above?

"...unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. "

It illustrates the very difficulty the OP wants discussed - doctrinal uncertainty in some areas.   Before Vatican II - unbaptized children excluded from heaven eternally.  After Vatican II, heaven was opened to them.
I would point him to the Catechism and ask him why he is at odds with what his Church teaches. I would also point out the thief on the cross who did not get a chance to be baptized, but was told by Christ Himself that he would be with Him in paradise. I would also appeal to common sense and ask him if he can actually say with a straight face that he believes that an all-merciful God, which is the Scriptures say is love, would actually condemn infants to hell.


But he is not speaking of your current doctrines.  He is speaking of what was taught prior to Vatican II  - eternal exclusion from heaven -the very opposite of current teaching.
I would disagree that it was ever doctrine rather than popular theological opinion of the time and would ask him to prove otherwise.

And your present doctrines on the topic?  Are they any more stable and certain?   Will they change again with new Popes and new opinions?  

So when Catholics say, "Yes, our people believed in Limbo for a 1000 years.  It was taught by the Popes and the Magisterium and the bishops and the priests and the nuns.   But all of that can be ignored because, although it was a part of our Tradition, it was never dogmatized."  Well, that makes very little sense to the Orthodox who live by a much more wholistic approach to the holy Tradition.



« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 08:12:46 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2012, 08:13:41 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

Wyatt,

How would you and others answer Fr Brian Harrison's words in message 20 above?

"...unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. "

It illustrates the very difficulty the OP wants discussed - doctrinal uncertainty in some areas.   Before Vatican II - unbaptized children excluded from heaven eternally.  After Vatican II, heaven was opened to them.
I would point him to the Catechism and ask him why he is at odds with what his Church teaches. I would also point out the thief on the cross who did not get a chance to be baptized, but was told by Christ Himself that he would be with Him in paradise. I would also appeal to common sense and ask him if he can actually say with a straight face that he believes that an all-merciful God, which is the Scriptures say is love, would actually condemn infants to hell.


But he is not speaking of your current doctrines.  He is speaking of what was taught prior to Vatican II  - eternal exclusion from heaven -the very opposite of current teaching.
I would disagree that it was ever doctrine rather than popular theological opinion of the time and would ask him to prove otherwise.

And your present doctrines on the topic?  Are they any more stable and certain?   Will thery change again with new Popes and new opinions?
I think they are much more stable because they are less specific than theologians were trying to be back in the day. Rather than saying "unbaptized infants go to limbo" we now say "we don't know with certainty how God deals with unbaptized infants, but we have every reason to hope He is merciful to them." One teaching presumes to know exactly how God deals with them, whereas the other simply says that we trust in God's mercy and leave it up to Him.


So when Catholics say, "Yes, our people believed in Limbo for a 1000 years.  It was taught by the Popes and the Magisterium and the bishops and the priests and the nuns.   But all of that can be ignored because, although it was a part of our Tradition, it was never dogmatized."  Well, that makes very little sense to the Orthodox who live by a much more wholistic approach to the holy Tradition.
I would argue that Limbo was never a part of capital "t" Tradition (meaning Apostolic Tradition), but was rather seen, for a time, as a reasonable theological solution to a perceived problem, which was the fate of unbaptized infants.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2012, 08:21:10 PM »

I do not understand.  The Catechism says that Catholic may hope that unbaptized children go to heaven.

Is the Catechism wrong?

Is it not really a question of hoping at all?  Catholics in fact, contrary to the Catechism, know that unbaptized children go to heaven because they are incapable of self-exclusion.

But does self-exclusion apply to humans who have not reached the age of reason?  

And why does the Catechism speak, incorrectly it seems, only of hope if it is really a fact?
This is an area which I have struggled with as well, but the way I heard it explained is like this: the Church does not have the authority to say that they are definitely saved, but speaks of hope because ultimately only God can judge. However, there is nothing wrong with Catholics believing that God does save unbaptized infants. I believe that He does, and in a theological grey area like this I definitely favor that belief over the existence of limbo. However, the Church cannot twist God's arm so to speak and say what He definitely does or does not do, because that's His call. We can only say what we have received through Apostolic Tradition, and Tradition says that Baptism is the normal means of salvation. It does not say it is the only means, but when and how God grants salvation outside of Baptism is His prerogative.

Wyatt,

How would you and others answer Fr Brian Harrison's words in message 20 above?

"...unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. "

It illustrates the very difficulty the OP wants discussed - doctrinal uncertainty in some areas.   Before Vatican II - unbaptized children excluded from heaven eternally.  After Vatican II, heaven was opened to them.
I would point him to the Catechism and ask him why he is at odds with what his Church teaches. I would also point out the thief on the cross who did not get a chance to be baptized, but was told by Christ Himself that he would be with Him in paradise. I would also appeal to common sense and ask him if he can actually say with a straight face that he believes that an all-merciful God, which is the Scriptures say is love, would actually condemn infants to hell.


But he is not speaking of your current doctrines.  He is speaking of what was taught prior to Vatican II  - eternal exclusion from heaven -the very opposite of current teaching.
I would disagree that it was ever doctrine rather than popular theological opinion of the time and would ask him to prove otherwise.

And your present doctrines on the topic?  Are they any more stable and certain?   Will thery change again with new Popes and new opinions?
I think they are much more stable because they are less specific than theologians were trying to be back in the day. Rather than saying "unbaptized infants go to limbo" we now say "we don't know with certainty how God deals with unbaptized infants, but we have every reason to hope He is merciful to them." One teaching presumes to know exactly how God deals with them, whereas the other simply says that we trust in God's mercy and leave it up to Him.


So when Catholics say, "Yes, our people believed in Limbo for a 1000 years.  It was taught by the Popes and the Magisterium and the bishops and the priests and the nuns.   But all of that can be ignored because, although it was a part of our Tradition, it was never dogmatized."  Well, that makes very little sense to the Orthodox who live by a much more wholistic approach to the holy Tradition.
I would argue that Limbo was never a part of capital "t" Tradition (meaning Apostolic Tradition), but was rather seen, for a time, as a reasonable theological solution to a perceived problem, which was the fate of unbaptized infants.

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven. 

Is there any convincing reason to think they've got it right now?  (apart from the belief of every generation that thery know more and see more clearly than previous ones.)
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2012, 08:24:19 PM »

Is there any convincing reason to think they've got it right now?  (apart from the belief of every generation that thery know more and see more clearly than previous ones.)

And you wonder why the RCs are hesitant to admit error . . . They just can't live it down when they do.

Sheesh.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #43 on: February 02, 2012, 08:29:11 PM »

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.
Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time? According to you, Aquinas thought violence towards heretics was acceptable. That may be true...doesn't really matter, because it has never been Church teaching.

Is there any convincing reason to think they've got it right now?  (apart from the belief of every generation that thery know more and see more clearly than previous ones.)
Yeah...saying "we trust them to God's mercy" is leaving it up to God, rather than trying to define precisely what God does with unbaptized infants. In the absence of any official Church teaching on what exactly and with certainty happens to unbaptized infants, people are free to still believe in limbo if they wish and some Catholics still do. I do not, and I am not at odds with my Church for not believing in limbo because it's never been doctrine or dogma. Sometimes things become such a popular theological opinion that they may seem like doctrine or dogma, but they still are not. How do we know what is doctrine or dogma? We look to the Church to answer that.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2012, 08:40:13 PM »

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.
Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time?

The same as they are still doing today?

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2012, 08:41:36 PM »

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2012, 08:52:57 PM »

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.

It's cute but what on earth does it mean?  Grin Discard Orthodox beliefs as outdated?!
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2012, 08:54:40 PM »

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.

It's cute but what on earth does it mean?  Grin Discard Orthodox beliefs as outdated?!

Cute for cute's sake.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #48 on: February 02, 2012, 09:09:14 PM »

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.

It's cute but what on earth does it mean?  Grin Discard Orthodox beliefs as outdated?!

Cute for cute's sake.

Are you having a facetious day?  It took me years to bring my facetiousness under control.   laugh
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #49 on: February 02, 2012, 10:06:59 PM »

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.

What gospel are you talking about?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #50 on: February 02, 2012, 10:09:51 PM »

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.
Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time?

The same as they are still doing today?

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.
Not if it was just a widespread theological opinion.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #51 on: February 02, 2012, 10:21:56 PM »

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.
Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time?

The same as they are still doing today?

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.
Not if it was just a widespread theological opinion.

This highlights a massive problem which the Orthodox have with Catholicism and its approach to the Deposit of Faith.  Its approach is vastly different to ours.....

I worked my brains and wrote something sensible on this...

See message 65
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36700.msg579648.html#msg579648
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 10:22:32 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #52 on: February 02, 2012, 10:51:07 PM »

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.
Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time?

The same as they are still doing today?

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.
Not if it was just a widespread theological opinion.

This highlights a massive problem which the Orthodox have with Catholicism and its approach to the Deposit of Faith.  Its approach is vastly different to ours.....

I worked my brains and wrote something sensible on this...

See message 65
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36700.msg579648.html#msg579648

Well said, both of you.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #53 on: February 02, 2012, 10:55:54 PM »

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.

What gospel are you talking about?
What orthornom is saying is Jesus Christ brought about something that was more or less antithetical to the Jews; Christ wasn't the Messiah they exepcted. Here you have a long line of tradition and then boom Jesus Christ brings in new radical ideas and He himself is radical for the fact God took upon flesh.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: February 02, 2012, 11:00:21 PM »

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.

What gospel are you talking about?
What orthornom is saying is Jesus Christ brought about something that was more or less antithetical to the Jews; Christ wasn't the Messiah they exepcted. Here you have a long line of tradition and then boom Jesus Christ brings in new radical ideas and He himself is radical for the fact God took upon flesh.

I still don't see the point, in this context.  The Popes may disrupt a thousand of years of teaching because they hold the place of Christ on earth?  Why would Christ contradict His previous teachings?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2012, 11:03:40 PM »

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.
Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time?

The same as they are still doing today?

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.
Not if it was just a widespread theological opinion.

This highlights a massive problem which the Orthodox have with Catholicism and its approach to the Deposit of Faith.  Its approach is vastly different to ours.....

I worked my brains and wrote something sensible on this...

See message 65
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36700.msg579648.html#msg579648

Well said, both of you.

I love Anglicans.... always polite, always fair, always gentlemen.  Smiley
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2012, 11:06:51 PM »

I love Anglicans.... always polite, always fair, always gentlemen.  Smiley

That's a nice for you to say, but what does it have to do with me?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2012, 11:15:31 PM »

I love Anglicans.... always polite, always fair, always gentlemen.  Smiley

That's a nice for you to say, but what does it have to do with me?

I thought you were a Continuing Anglican.... continuing to be polite... continuing to be fair... continuing to be a gentleman. Smiley
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,958


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #58 on: February 02, 2012, 11:20:13 PM »

Because sometimes, "we" do not (or cannot) believe what Catholics believe to believe.  Wink
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #59 on: February 02, 2012, 11:25:22 PM »

I love Anglicans.... always polite, always fair, always gentlemen.  Smiley

That's a nice for you to say, but what does it have to do with me?

I thought you were a Continuing Anglican.... continuing to be polite... continuing to be fair... continuing to be a gentleman. Smiley

Continuing Anglican, eh? Yeah, that sounds about right. Or Continuing Catholic. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 706



« Reply #60 on: February 03, 2012, 12:23:48 AM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal.  Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience.  Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.  

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point  is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 12:26:45 AM by peteprint » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: February 03, 2012, 12:49:33 AM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal.  Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience.  Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.  

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point  is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.  

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #62 on: February 03, 2012, 01:04:55 AM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal.  Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience.  Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.  

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point  is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.  

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.
I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 01:06:16 AM by Wyatt » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: February 03, 2012, 02:37:15 AM »

[I'm not as easily shocked as you might think..

I think I meant that you would be shocked that silly old Ambrose is correct when he talks about the beliefs of the Catholic Church of 40 years ago and he is not intentionally misrepresenting things.   laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: February 03, 2012, 03:02:15 AM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title. .   


This Catholic doctrine is the wicked and merciless inheritance from Saint Augustine.  Yet no doubt Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore would have seen himself as a model of charity to the people of his diocese.

We were taught this at school, but I always had my doubts.  Could never express them verbally since it would have resulted in the leather strap from the nuns or priests.   And I imagine that the seminarian saying he did not believe it would have been told he would not be ordained.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #65 on: February 03, 2012, 03:13:59 AM »

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.

Have you asked what Orthodox believe? It's hard getting an anwer to that sometimes too... Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: February 03, 2012, 08:55:01 AM »

I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false...

Characterising it as a “popular belief” and a “false” belief does not seem an honest presentation of the the Catholic Church's doctrine.

Fr Harrison writes (see message 20) that it was certainly more than “popular belief.”  He says that it “was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis” and “..the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium...”


« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 08:56:45 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: February 03, 2012, 10:29:40 AM »

bump

I think it might be useful to compare our respective understandings of "formalize"

Toll Houses are a fine example of reversing the teachings of the Holy Fathers in Orthodoxy...depending on how one understands "formalizing" a teaching.

M.

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?  In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?

There is not.  Much of our faith has never been "formalised."  We tend to live and believe by our tradition which will be formalised in Councils only when necessary, when heretics disturb the faith of the Church.

I believe this answers the question for another thread:

Why is "What do Orthodox believe?" such a difficult question?
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #68 on: February 03, 2012, 11:25:27 AM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal.  Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience.  Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.  

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point  is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.  

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.
I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late  Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 11:26:37 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #69 on: February 03, 2012, 12:23:53 PM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal.  Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience.  Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.  

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point  is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.  

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.
I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late  Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.
I would be interested in hearing those quotes if you are able to find them. I didn't think for a minute that the Catholic Church was the only Church that changed its understanding of a few things over the years...I just had no idea where to begin to find examples of Orthodox teachings that change. I believe, actually, that there is change occurring within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod as well. There are pastors now that are beginning to say things such as "I can't tell you that an unbaptized baby is in hell" and things like that. I think whenever there is a teaching that is absurd, like believing unbaptized babies go to hell or that they go to limbo, it is only a matter of time before people start doubting it. Eventually, the doubt is so widespread that it causes people to stop and reevaluate the teaching.

I'm thankful that limbo is no longer the status quo teaching of the Catholic Church. If it was I doubt that I would be Catholic today. In RCIA we were told that we entrust the souls of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and that was it...end of discussion. I think that's about right where the discussion should end.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #70 on: February 03, 2012, 12:30:28 PM »

How do you mean 'reversing'?

bump

I think it might be useful to compare our respective understandings of "formalize"

Toll Houses are a fine example of reversing the teachings of the Holy Fathers in Orthodoxy...depending on how one understands "formalizing" a teaching.

M.

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die?  In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?

There is not.  Much of our faith has never been "formalised."  We tend to live and believe by our tradition which will be formalised in Councils only when necessary, when heretics disturb the faith of the Church.

I believe this answers the question for another thread:

Why is "What do Orthodox believe?" such a difficult question?
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,960


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #71 on: February 03, 2012, 12:44:05 PM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal.  Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience.  Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.  

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point  is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.  

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.
I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late  Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.
I would be interested in hearing those quotes if you are able to find them. I didn't think for a minute that the Catholic Church was the only Church that changed its understanding of a few things over the years...I just had no idea where to begin to find examples of Orthodox teachings that change. I believe, actually, that there is change occurring within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod as well. There are pastors now that are beginning to say things such as "I can't tell you that an unbaptized baby is in hell" and things like that. I think whenever there is a teaching that is absurd, like believing unbaptized babies go to hell or that they go to limbo, it is only a matter of time before people start doubting it. Eventually, the doubt is so widespread that it causes people to stop and reevaluate the teaching.

I'm thankful that limbo is no longer the status quo teaching of the Catholic Church. If it was I doubt that I would be Catholic today. In RCIA we were told that we entrust the souls of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and that was it...end of discussion. I think that's about right where the discussion should end.

I am not saying TEACHINGS change, but the language used to express them may change - thereby confusing both the educated clergy and the laity. In the mid-20th century, it was not uncommon for Orthodox writers in English to use terminology more familiar to an American audience to try to convey Orthodox thought. It didn't always work well. On the other hand, we see a trend of what I call confused  and unintentional 'obfuscation' as a response with the insertion of Greek or Russian words to try to express the nuanced meaning of another tongue.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #72 on: February 03, 2012, 01:35:15 PM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal.  Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience.  Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.  

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point  is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.  

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.
I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late  Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.
I would be interested in hearing those quotes if you are able to find them. I didn't think for a minute that the Catholic Church was the only Church that changed its understanding of a few things over the years...I just had no idea where to begin to find examples of Orthodox teachings that change. I believe, actually, that there is change occurring within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod as well. There are pastors now that are beginning to say things such as "I can't tell you that an unbaptized baby is in hell" and things like that. I think whenever there is a teaching that is absurd, like believing unbaptized babies go to hell or that they go to limbo, it is only a matter of time before people start doubting it. Eventually, the doubt is so widespread that it causes people to stop and reevaluate the teaching.

I'm thankful that limbo is no longer the status quo teaching of the Catholic Church. If it was I doubt that I would be Catholic today. In RCIA we were told that we entrust the souls of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and that was it...end of discussion. I think that's about right where the discussion should end.

Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else.  I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task  Wink

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't.  Hope I'm making sense here  Embarrassed.

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe.  If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe.  Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification.  If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that.  If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?  But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things. 

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others.  Unfortunately, I don't have the link.  Hopefully that won't be a problem!  Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #73 on: February 03, 2012, 03:28:24 PM »

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions.  In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg703379.html#msg703379

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level.  Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible.  How that works must be quite a bit more complication.


Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else.  I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task  Wink

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't.  Hope I'm making sense here  Embarrassed.

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe.  If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe.  Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification.  If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that.  If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?  But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things. 

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others.  Unfortunately, I don't have the link.  Hopefully that won't be a problem!  Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #74 on: February 03, 2012, 03:38:56 PM »

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...".  Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject?  And where does she say it?  Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( Grin), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.


Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions.  In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg703379.html#msg703379

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level.  Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible.  How that works must be quite a bit more complication.


Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else.  I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task  Wink

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't.  Hope I'm making sense here  Embarrassed.

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe.  If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe.  Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification.  If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that.  If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?  But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things. 

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others.  Unfortunately, I don't have the link.  Hopefully that won't be a problem!  Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #75 on: February 03, 2012, 04:13:43 PM »

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...".  Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject?  And where does she say it?  Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( Grin), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.


Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions.  In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg703379.html#msg703379

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level.  Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible.  How that works must be quite a bit more complication.


Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else.  I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task  Wink

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't.  Hope I'm making sense here  Embarrassed.

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe.  If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe.  Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification.  If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that.  If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?  But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things. 

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others.  Unfortunately, I don't have the link.  Hopefully that won't be a problem!  Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""


I hope that is not what she is saying, because it is not Ok for Catholics to reject Catholic dogmas. Those Melkites who reject the teachings of Vatican I are in error.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #76 on: February 03, 2012, 04:15:24 PM »

I asked the question, and she agreed.  I didn't say she wrote it, and that's why I said 'agreed.'  perhaps a second look when you're feeling better...   angel

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...".  Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject?  And where does she say it?  Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( Grin), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.


Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions.  In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg703379.html#msg703379

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level.  Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible.  How that works must be quite a bit more complication.


Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else.  I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task  Wink

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't.  Hope I'm making sense here  Embarrassed.

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe.  If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe.  Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification.  If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that.  If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?  But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things. 

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others.  Unfortunately, I don't have the link.  Hopefully that won't be a problem!  Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""


Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #77 on: February 03, 2012, 04:49:38 PM »

bump

I think it might be useful to compare our respective understandings of "formalize"

Toll Houses are a fine example of reversing the teachings of the Holy Fathers in Orthodoxy...depending on how one understands "formalizing" a teaching
.

You do realise that much of the Church has not heard of toll houses?

If you read Fr Seraphim Rose's very unfortunate book which brought them to light and popularised them in the 1980s among some English-speaking circles, he moans in his introduction that neither clergy nor laity have heard of them.  

In Russia where the uneducated folk have taken to believing in them it is because of translations of Fr Seraphim's book.  Among Russian clergy and theologians, they are viewed as highly dubious, some sort of Roman Catholic influence stemming from Purgatory.  For proof of my claim please read message 560
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36319.msg627637.html#msg627637

If you count this as "a fine example of reversing the teachings of the Holy Fathers in Orthodoxy"  then you really are somewhat ignorant of Orthodoxy or you are intentionally misrepresenting it for some reason.

Please, let's not derail this thread by too much Orthodox material.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 05:14:36 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #78 on: February 03, 2012, 04:52:46 PM »

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time.  Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal.  Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience.  Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven.  Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault?  To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.  

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point  is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.  

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.
I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late  Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.

I would like to see those quotes too but maybe in another thread and not tangled up with the OP of this thread.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #79 on: February 03, 2012, 04:54:02 PM »

Gee, it's a miracle!  I'm "feeling better"  angel angel!!  Actually, I wasn't feeling bad, just not seeing what you were referring to.  But thanks for your concern!

Anyway, I think I saw what you were referring to, where Mary said something about suggesting the language could probably be tweaked, etc.  Interesting....  I would say the language would need to be a little more than tweaked.  First of all, the two of you were referring to Eastern Catholics, not Western (Roman Catholics)--I say that just for the sake of clarity.  And secondly, during my catechesis in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church, on a one to one basis with the priest, some years ago, similar questions arose.  For the life of me I cannot recall him saying that we Byzantine Catholics reject Catholic dogmas.  When I pressed him some about it, he did say something to the effect of, "we understand some of these dogmas a little differently than the Roman Catholic Church, and may use slightly different language to talk about them.  We are, however, fully Catholic and completely in communion with the Church of Rome."  Something like that. 

It worked for me then, and it works for me now.  I don't see a problem.  It may be somewhat paradoxical here and there, but, life has no shortage of paradoxes that we somehow manage to live with and deal with--even in Orthodoxy!



I asked the question, and she agreed.  I didn't say she wrote it, and that's why I said 'agreed.'  perhaps a second look when you're feeling better...   angel

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...".  Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject?  And where does she say it?  Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( Grin), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.


Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions.  In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg703379.html#msg703379

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level.  Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible.  How that works must be quite a bit more complication.


Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else.  I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task  Wink

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't.  Hope I'm making sense here  Embarrassed.

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe.  If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe.  Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification.  If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that.  If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?  But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things. 

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others.  Unfortunately, I don't have the link.  Hopefully that won't be a problem!  Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""


Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #80 on: February 03, 2012, 06:14:08 PM »

In RCIA we were told that we entrust the souls of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and that was it...end of discussion.

That last part would sound better in Latin: causa finita est.

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,267


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #81 on: February 03, 2012, 06:25:16 PM »

In RCIA we were told that we entrust the souls of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and that was it...end of discussion.

That last part would sound better in Latin: causa finita est.



Gotta love that Latin!

Would it be going too far or incorrect to say the we entrust *all* souls to the mercy of God?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #82 on: February 03, 2012, 06:33:41 PM »

For a Roman Catholic, then, we would have to say that the term 'dogma' does not mean an absolute truth that must be believed, but rather a truth that can be rejected so long as both 'sides' (here I'm thinking of your presented dichotomy of Byzantine-Ruthenian versus Roman) agree that this dogma is not necessary for salvation.

Does that look accurate?

Would you say, then, that there are different types of dogma in the RCC?  If so, how are they generally delineated?


Gee, it's a miracle!  I'm "feeling better"  angel angel!!  Actually, I wasn't feeling bad, just not seeing what you were referring to.  But thanks for your concern!

Anyway, I think I saw what you were referring to, where Mary said something about suggesting the language could probably be tweaked, etc.  Interesting....  I would say the language would need to be a little more than tweaked.  First of all, the two of you were referring to Eastern Catholics, not Western (Roman Catholics)--I say that just for the sake of clarity.  And secondly, during my catechesis in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church, on a one to one basis with the priest, some years ago, similar questions arose.  For the life of me I cannot recall him saying that we Byzantine Catholics reject Catholic dogmas.  When I pressed him some about it, he did say something to the effect of, "we understand some of these dogmas a little differently than the Roman Catholic Church, and may use slightly different language to talk about them.  We are, however, fully Catholic and completely in communion with the Church of Rome."  Something like that. 

It worked for me then, and it works for me now.  I don't see a problem.  It may be somewhat paradoxical here and there, but, life has no shortage of paradoxes that we somehow manage to live with and deal with--even in Orthodoxy!



I asked the question, and she agreed.  I didn't say she wrote it, and that's why I said 'agreed.'  perhaps a second look when you're feeling better...   angel

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...".  Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject?  And where does she say it?  Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( Grin), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.


Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions.  In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg703379.html#msg703379

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level.  Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible.  How that works must be quite a bit more complication.


Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else.  I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task  Wink

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't.  Hope I'm making sense here  Embarrassed.

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe.  If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe.  Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification.  If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that.  If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?  But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things. 

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others.  Unfortunately, I don't have the link.  Hopefully that won't be a problem!  Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""


Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #83 on: February 03, 2012, 06:45:20 PM »

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions.  In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg703379.html#msg703379

Hi Father Giryus. I had fallen behind a bit in terms of reading that thread, so I didn't read elijahmaria's post (or your post to which she was responding) until just a few minutes ago.

I really couldn't tell you why she said what she said, or what she meant. You would have to ask her.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #84 on: February 03, 2012, 06:56:21 PM »

I appreciate that!!!!    laugh

A bit too dicey for you.  That's OK.  Now you feel what I often feel on these threads...


Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions.  In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg703379.html#msg703379

Hi Father Giryus. I had fallen behind a bit in terms of reading that thread, so I didn't read elijahmaria's post (or your post to which she was responding) until just a few minutes ago.

I really couldn't tell you why she said what she said, or what she meant. You would have to ask her.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #85 on: February 03, 2012, 07:41:15 PM »


A bit too dicey for you. 


Well actually, by "I really couldn't tell you" I mean that I don't know.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #86 on: February 03, 2012, 11:29:44 PM »

I hope that is not what she is saying, because it is not Ok for Catholics to reject Catholic dogmas. Those Melkites who reject the teachings of Vatican I are in error.

Clearly the Melkites have been allowed to determine for themselves HOW they are going to respond to and interact with the teaching on papal primacy.  That's clear.  There's no doubt about it.  There's no doubt that Rome has accepted it.

That means several things. 

One: it means that there is some flexibility in the definition of papal infalibility in the universal Catholic Church.  That is actually in place in the document itself.  The Melkites extend the statement that papal infallibility does not take the place of episcopal power and authority to include the Patriarchs in their patriarchates.

Two: it means that the Melkites have not, in the process of interpreting the dogmatic constitution, called it a heresy.

Three:  it means that Rome has accepted the Melkite position without public chastisement or correcting of any kind.  Not only that but the recent popes have asked the counsel of their brother Melkites.

So you can draw any lines in the sand that you like but you'd better line up behind the ones that are ALREADY there!!

 Wink
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: February 03, 2012, 11:29:44 PM »

For a Roman Catholic, then, we would have to say that the term 'dogma' does not mean an absolute truth that must be believed, but rather a truth that can be rejected so long as both 'sides' (here I'm thinking of your presented dichotomy of Byzantine-Ruthenian versus Roman) agree that this dogma is not necessary for salvation.

Does that look accurate?

Would you say, then, that there are different types of dogma in the RCC?  If so, how are they generally delineated?


It means that there is room for distinct interpretations of dogma and doctrine...AS LONG AS...the core truths are not denied and the dogmatic definitions are not called into question as heresy, nor is the Church attacked on account of her teaching.  So in this way one speaks of a distinction without a difference.

In practical terms, from my example of pope and patriarch and petrine primacy, it means that when they meet, they meet on equal footing.  IF the pope needs a patriarch to meet with him, he should be able to initiate that meeting with every expectation that the patriarch will oblige as much as he is able to do so physically, materially and mentally.  By the same token the request must be a request and not issued as an order.  Also I have never seen any pope by-pass a Metropolitan in the eastern Churches to go directly to one of the metropolitanate bishops.

So in that sense universal jurisdiction has a practical meaning.

There are other practical expectations in terms of the Roman episcopate, for example.  Quite different expectations in fact.

None of it negates the Church's teachings on papal primacy.

The pope will not initiate the removal of a bishop, for example, until there have been many many many warnings....AND....the bishop has lost the support of his own synodal brother bishops.  We do need, I think, to dump that conference business and return to synods but for now it is what it is...and that is another question.

You all only seem to be able to see in black and white and a living Church simply does not work that way.

M.

Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.395 seconds with 115 queries.