Eastern Catholics, Western Catholics, Original Sin, and the Immaculate Conception...

[Tim Hayes]

Limbo is irrelevent to the topic, th eproblem for all believers either EAST or WEST is what happens to thse who are not baptised, in real terms not to many have come ack to tell us, so we are ultimatley left with speculation associated with the teachings of the Church.

Simple fact. The early undivided Church wanted to baptise babies as quickly as possible due to the very real fear that without baptism a baby MAY suffer eternal damnation, becasue no where in scripture does it specifically say that anyone is exempt as such from baptism.

There is no other reason for wanting to baptise children so urgently.

Certainly it has been taught that as adults, no baptism, no salvation, that is the general rule, with few exceptions.

The problem for both Catholics and Orthodox is that both positions have a problem.

Obvioulsy not to many babies are baptised in the womb, so therefor any baby who dies in the womb does so without baptism and we generally speaking find it inconceivable that God would allow such babies to go to hell.

Scripture is very clear that no one is exempt from Baptism. So with that in mind the Catholic Church has said that those who die without personal sin, but in a state of original sin could go to limbo where in reality they are in a minor type of paradise.

This theory was developed due to the fact that historically speaking it has been the undivided Churche's view to baptise as early as possible to secure the soul of the baby.

Yet what do we do for those who have no personal sin but who have original sin.

Now the Orthodox view as the undivided Church was the same, baptise early to secure the souls of the young, yet if I believe what I have been educated to believe on this site by Orthodox, they do not believe that Adam and Eve's sin, puts us at risk of hell without baptism. As such there is no need to baptise babies.

The problem this presents is that if babies definately have no need whatsoever of baptism, for the salvation of their souls then in reality how can an adult need baptism for salvation.

[Alexius]

The truth is, that by lacking the grace necessary for sanctification (and therefore justification), one is "separated" from GOD. Another thing to consider is that the infant is free from personal sin. IN MY OPINION, the infant does not merit hell, but that is simply me. The child is in GOD's merciful "arms..." Orthodox have come to the opinion from time to time that infants who are not baptized go to hell (I think of Dositheus and a few others). Again, neither East nor West have dogmatized such a view. The fate of infants is left to GOD and his mercy...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by Alexius

The truth is, that by lacking the grace necessary for sanctification (and therefore justification), one is "separated" from GOD. Another thing to consider is that the infant is free from personal sin. IN MY OPINION, the infant does not merit hell, but that is simply me. The child is in GOD's merciful "arms..." Orthodox have come to the opinion from time to time that infants who are not baptized go to hell (I think of Dositheus and a few others). Again, neither East nor West have dogmatized such a view. The fate of infants is left to GOD and his mercy...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Catholics have come to that same conclusion though as the council of Florence mentions.

[holdencaulfield]

Originally Posted by The Iambic Pen

Thank you for the information! Is it not true, however, that many Catholic theologians have taught that those who died in the womb, not having yet been baptized, would go to Hell? I also believe it is true that some taught that the condition of these damned, though not perhaps having the pain of sense, would still be in Hell (perhaps this is where Limbo might exist). I understand that the Catechism says we may have hope for the unbaptized infants who die, but the traditional teaching seems a bit more harsh.

The Eastern belief would be that in Hades/Sheol the baby would most likely be able to attain Salvation just as the many souls in Purgatory did. The Western belief would be that the baby would be damned to Hell, or in some people's view Limbo.

[The Iambic Pen]

Originally Posted by holdencaulfield

The Western belief would be that the baby would be damned to Hell, or in some people's view Limbo.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to offer far more hope than that.

[Evan]

People have been posting here about those who do not 'Merit hell'.

We all 'merit hell' in a certain sense that God does not owe us heaven and we can never 'merit heaven'. We cannot earn our way to heaven, and if not heaven, 'hell' is the only other option. SO by not 'meriting heaven' we are sent to hell.

Through baptism we are given the gift of heaven. (if we do not lose it) so what happens to those who have not been given that gift?

The unborn have NEVER made a bad choice so should not be punished for their actions; they have NEVER made a good choice and so should not be rewarded for their actions. Since we deny 'universalism': all go to heaven; how does God choose? The example was the 'Sheep and Goats' parable: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, ... But what of those who never chose to do that? The evil, the unborn, the mentally incompetent, infants?

That's what God is for. He gets to chose what to do and we know he is Infinitely Just and Merciful. So Limbo is a hypothesis. a place where neither infinite reward or punishment is given.

Off the topic of original sin, but, in our original innocence, before the fall, what would be our final state? Heaven or paradise or eden or are they all the same?

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by Evan

People have been posting here about those who do not 'Merit hell'.

We all 'merit hell' in a certain sense that God does not owe us heaven and we can never 'merit heaven'. We cannot earn our way to heaven, and if not heaven, 'hell' is the only other option. SO by not 'meriting heaven' we are sent to hell.

Through baptism we are given the gift of heaven. (if we do not lose it) so what happens to those who have not been given that gift?

The unborn have NEVER made a bad choice so should not be punished for their actions; they have NEVER made a good choice and so should not be rewarded for their actions. Since we deny 'universalism': all go to heaven; how does God choose? The example was the 'Sheep and Goats' parable: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, ... But what of those who never chose to do that? The evil, the unborn, the mentally incompetent, infants?

That's what God is for. He gets to chose what to do and we know he is Infinitely Just and Merciful. So Limbo is a hypothesis. a place where neither infinite reward or punishment is given.

Off the topic of original sin, but, in our original innocence, before the fall, what would be our final state? Heaven or paradise or eden or are they all the same?

What does merit have to do with it? No one is saying that we can merit salvation. What the Byzantines and all the east say is that Original Sin does not condemn one to hell. The prophets of the OT were in Sheol, a holding place that was neither heaven nor hell until Christ came. They did not go to hell because of Original Sin. If OS does not condemn us to hell then obviously Heaven is a possibility for the infant.

No, the Church does not deny universalism. What it denies is the concept of the apocatastasis as Origen formulated it. It does not say that anyone is in hell. Every single person could possibly reach heaven. And we must hope for the salvation of all.

[Gottle of Geer]

Originally Posted by jimmy

What does merit have to do with it? No one is saying that we can merit salvation. What the Byzantines and all the east say is that Original Sin does not condemn one to hell. The prophets of the OT were in Sheol, a holding place that was neither heaven nor hell until Christ came. They did not go to hell because of Original Sin. If OS does not condemn us to hell then obviously Heaven is a possibility for the infant.

## What understanding of OS can be compatible with admitting the reality of it, without requiring the conclusion that OS alienates us from God ? If we are implicated in the fall of our father, how are we not "in Adam" in a way that makes us as fallen & as subject to God's Wrath as he became ? If such an understanding is possible, it would be an education to read it.

To have a fall that does not lead to our being alienated from God makes no more sense than to say a man can fall without his body being fallen: for Adam is the head of the human race in sin, whose sin has involved us in his sinfulness - which is why we need a Saviour to begin with That his sin was committed in person by him & not by us in person does not mean at all that his sinfulness has not polluted his descendants: it has, & it comes down to them in course of time by propagation & not by imitation. This is not unusual, for if a woman takes drugs when pregnant, the baby she bears is likely to be wounded for an act not personal to it. The entire man falls, not aspects or faculties or parts of him, so all that he is & that is in him falls in his fall - just as the entire man is redeemed, or damned. An incomplete Fall implies an incomplete Saviour & an incomplete salvation

If & as OS has these evil effects, it exposes us to damnation unless Someone arrests the consequences which are proper to sin (the whole tendency is to damn the sinner) without someone to get in the way of that tendency - IOW, without a Mediator- damnation is certain. OS damns unless grace comes to help: & Jesus Christ is the Grace of God in the flesh.

It is one thing to say a doctrine has been incompletely articulated or incompletely seen; quite another, to say it is not true so far as goes; & another to say it is, in the way or ways articulated, a mixture of true & false.

No, the Church does not deny universalism. What it denies is the concept of the apocatastasis as Origen formulated it. It does not say that anyone is in hell. Every single person could possibly reach heaven. And we must hope for the salvation of all.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by jimmy

What does merit have to do with it? No one is saying that we can merit salvation. What the Byzantines and all the east say is that Original Sin does not condemn one to hell. The prophets of the OT were in Sheol, a holding place that was neither heaven nor hell until Christ came. They did not go to hell because of Original Sin. If OS does not condemn us to hell then obviously Heaven is a possibility for the infant.

No, the Church does not deny universalism. What it denies is the concept of the apocatastasis as Origen formulated it. It does not say that anyone is in hell. Every single person could possibly reach heaven. And we must hope for the salvation of all.

I agree. I was trying to say, the word 'merit' does not belong in the discussion. We do not merit hell any more than we merit heaven. One is a gift, the other a ??? (consequence, justice, ???). OS does not condemn us to hell neither does it imply heaven. It leaves the question open.

The Church does deny universalism as it is taught by some: that we all go to heaven, regardless of our actions, intentions, and repentence. We could all end in heaven, but the Church leaves open the possiblity of another ultimate fate.

[Andreas Hofer]

Originally Posted by Evan

I agree. I was trying to say, the word 'merit' does not belong in the discussion. We do not merit hell any more than we merit heaven. One is a gift, the other a ??? (consequence, justice, ???). OS does not condemn us to hell neither does it imply heaven. It leaves the question open.

The Church does deny universalism as it is taught by some: that we all go to heaven, regardless of our actions, intentions, and repentence. We could all end in heaven, but the Church leaves open the possiblity of another ultimate fate.

Since the thread is about comparing Eastern to Western belief, I don't feel bad in bringing up that the Council of Trent affirms that we merit our final end. We cannot merit our first grace, but once God has gifted us with grace we can, because by grace the Holy Spirit operates within us, merit eternal life. The unjust actually merit hell, in a sense, more than the just merit heaven because we are capable of meriting hell solely by our own power, whereas it takes the free gift of grace to merit eternal life.

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by jimmy

Catholics have come to that same conclusion though as the council of Florence mentions.

The Council of Florence simply says that Original Sin alone leads to Hell; it doesn't speak of whether or not God's Mercy is extended to infants who have not been Baptized.

Peace and God bless!

[peso73]

I think the concept of one being sent to Hell for being born Human without being baptised, whether in the womb or fresh out, or even years out, is based on a concept of God that no one would love, only fear. There is no justice in that, and it is one thing I have always hated about Christianity, it's as if, God sends you here, all souls are created by God of course, and in a state deserving damnation? What's that about?

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by Mickey

I believe there was a teaching on limbo. But apparently this has been recently retracted.

This comment from you is a lot like me and chocolate cake - if it is in my house (I try to avoid it being in my house) I simply cannot resist it. This delicate - and very controversial/largely inaccurately reported matter should be worth more in matters of discussion than some flippant comment to the effect of "gee, you used to teach it but guess you don't (shrug)"

Are you familiar with the actual nature of the teaching on Limbo or who or what body actually addressed it in the last few years?

Let's be better than to jump on mainstream-media misreporting for opportunities of controversialism and polemic.

[peso73]

Isn't it that limbo is/was supposed to be a "place/state" of complete "natural" happiness, but neither heaven, nor hell, nor purgatory, that the souls of the unbaptized infants and such went to? I thought the deal was, it was "taught by the church" in a small "t" sort of way for quite a while, but never a dogma, or a doctrine as such, never a church "Teaching". Is that not the case?
Of course, I did have my son baptised as soon as I could after he was born, but if he'd have died or something, I am pretty sure a Divine Master of all creation that is Love itself, who 9 months or so earlier had zapped his little soul into existance, would have drawn it back to Himself with no delay or detour, but then again,...do newborns feel "happiness" or "sadness" as such?
Of course they feel pain, and their little brains are doing and intaking all sorts of things I am sure but..... (... ,looks like I'd better start a new thread!)

[LakaYaRabb]

According to my understanding, the Western Catholic view of original sin is that each of us is conceived in a state already meriting Hell, even before we commit any personal sins or do anything at all of our own will. Mary, by the grace of God, was conceived in a state free from original sin, and thus did not merit eternal damnation while still in the womb.

The Eastern Orthodox view, as I understand it, is that each of us inherits death and the tendency to sin from Adam, but we have nothing (or lack nothing) in our souls which would put us in the "this guy's going to Hell if he dies right now" column. As such, Orthodox have no need to believe Mary was conceived in a different state from any other person.

I believe the previous paragraph is a fairly accurate portrayal of the Orthodox view. I may have to go to a different forum and ask some Orthodox Christians to verify this for me.

So, do Eastern Catholics hold to the Western Catholic understanding of original sin, the Eastern Orthodox understanding of original sin, or some understanding of their own?

Eastern Catholics all come from the Eastern Orthodox in one fashion or another. Their tradition, spirituality and theology is Orthodox. Because of Latinizations, many have become confused and adopted Western ideas. After Vatican II, a unified front to recover the authentic traditions as repudiate latinizations really took hold. Sadly, this has lost alot of steam. However, many notable figures left us alot of good writing and inspiration to keep the movement for the full restoration of authentic traditions (and one day reunification of East and West).

In the mean time, some Eastern Catholics with latinized ideas and Eastern Orthodox dead set against reunification continue to be gigantic obstable to the authentic live of the Eastern Catholic Church.

The short answer to your question is that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox in theology. If not, they are latinized.

Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception and other such expressedly Western ideas DO NOT fit into Eastern Theology. But, thier is essentials at the core of these things that are indeed universal and acceptable in the East and West.

Personally, I see a very clear contradiction between the Western Catholic and Orthodox views; it's not simply a matter of different expressions of the same truth.

The term "different expression" has virtually no meaning in Western Theology.

I have truly no desire whatsoever to bash Eastern Catholics. They get enough of that from some Eastern Orthodox and some Latin Catholics as it is. However, I see the possibility that Eastern Catholics hold something as true that Western Catholics hold to be not true. Very confusing.

Ironic, many Western Catholics are so confused that they don't even know what they hold.

I have been studying Catholicism and Orthodoxy for some time now, and there is much I admire about both. Others have suggested that Eastern Catholicism would be a way to have the best of both. However, these apparent contradictions are troubling. Of course, if there are contradictions in matters of dogma between Eastern and Western Catholicism, then Western Catholicism is just as suspect. I'm certainly not going to automatically assume the West is right in all disputes.

I thank everyone in advance for any information. God bless!

I agree. Perhaps you might be a little more specific about the apparent contridictions.