Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524682' date='May 11 2008, 12:54 AM']So with infants are they automatically in a state of ever-well-being (heaven), even though they have never (as far as we know) responded to God's grace? . . .[/quote]
God will not condemn an innocent person to hell, nor does He place him in some natural state of being, as if nature can exist in separation from God (cf. Acts 17:28).

As I said in another post:

[quote]Eastern Christians believe that an unbaptized baby receives the vision of God, but that he does not receive the glory given through baptism or through the practice of ascetic virtue. On the other hand, a baptized baby that dies receives the glory given through the sacrament, but he does not receive the glory given through the practice of ascesis. The Eastern tradition holds that there will be degrees of glory for those who participate in the vision of God, but there is no "limbo" nor is an innocent person damned.[/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]Finally, the reason that Eastern Christians reject the Scholastic notion of "limbo" is centered upon the fact that there is but one end for man, just as there is but one beginning (i.e., God). Thus, the final end of man (both of the damned and the saved) is God, but how each person experiences this end is determined by the action of their own will in synergy with the uncreated divine energy.[/quote]

So in other words, Because there is one God, there is but one place which a soul will spend entirety. Heaven or Hell.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524682' date='May 11 2008, 12:54 AM']What, in a nutshell, is the Eastern understanding of Original sin? And how does this eliminate limbo? thanks[/quote]
The original sin is a particular act of disobedience of the first man, which had the effect of making his descendents mortal. Thus, as Fr. Meyendorff explained in his book "Byzantine Theology":

[quote]There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam; in the eleventh-century commentator Theophylact of Ohrida; and in later Byzantine authors, particularly in Gregory Palamas. The always-more-sophisticated Maximos the Confessor, when he speaks of the consequences of the sin of Adam, identifies them mainly with the mind’s submission to the flesh and finds in sexual procreation the most obvious expression of man’s acquiescence in animal instincts; but as we have seen, sin remains, for Maximos, a personal act, and inherited guilt is impossible. For him, as for the others, "the wrong choice made by Adam brought in passion, corruption, and mortality," but not inherited guilt.

The contrast with Western tradition on this point is brought into sharp focus when Eastern authors discuss the meaning of baptism. Augustine’s arguments in favor of infant baptism were taken from the text of the creeds (baptism for "the remission of sins") and from his understanding of Romans 5:12. Children are born sinful, not because they have sinned personally, but because they have sinned "in Adam"; their baptism is therefore also a baptism "for the remission of sins." At the same time, an Eastern contemporary of Augustine’s, Theodoret of Cyrus, flatly denies that the creedal formula "for the remission of sins" is applicable to infant baptism. For Theodoret, in fact, the "remission of sins" is only a side effect of baptism, fully real in cases of adult baptism, which is the norm, of course, in the early Church and which indeed "remits sins." But the principal meaning of baptism is wider and more positive: "If the only meaning of baptism is the remission of sins," writes Theodoret, "why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it, there are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master’s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or rather it is light itself."

Thus, the Church baptizes children not to "remit" their yet nonexistent sins, but in order to give them a new and immortal life, which their mortal parents are unable to communicate to them. The opposition between the two Adams is seen in terms not of guilt and forgiveness but of death and life. "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust (the ultra-handsome); the second man is from heaven; as was the man of dust (the ultra-handsome), so are those who are of the dust (the ultra-handsome), and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:47-48). Baptism is the paschal mystery, the "passage." All its ancient forms, especially the Byzantine, include a renunciation of Satan, a triple immersion as type of death and resurrection, and the positive gift of new life through anointing and Eucharistic communion.[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1524691' date='May 11 2008, 01:14 AM']So in other words, Because there is one God, there is but one place which a soul will spend entirety. Heaven or Hell.[/quote]
I would not use the word "place" necessarily in order to describe it; instead, I would simply say that God Himself is man's end.

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1524667' date='May 11 2008, 01:30 AM']The Church is bound by the sacraments, but God is not.[/quote]

Baptism is necessary in terms of means and precept, without it there is no salvation.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1524696' date='May 11 2008, 01:23 AM']Baptism is necessary in terms of means and precept, without it there is no salvation.[/quote]
I disagree. If through no fault of his own a man has no access to baptism, he will be judged by God according to his manner of life, and whether or not he cooperated with the divine energies given to him in an extraordinary fashion.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Apotheoun

[goldenchild17]

alright thanks apotheoun. I'm going to have to do some more reading and if you don't mind I'd like to pass along your posts to someone who I believe can help me digest it a little bit better. I'm sure this is due to a lack of understanding on my part but I'm having a really difficult time justifying what I think you are saying in accordance with what I thought was true Catholic teaching. Anyways, I'll be back hopefully after I've understood this a little better. peace

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1524697' date='May 11 2008, 02:23 AM']I disagree. If through no fault of his own a man has no access to baptism, he will be judged by God according to his manner of life, and whether or not he cooperated with the divine energies given to him in an extraordinary fashion.[/quote]

So that as to understand, would not it be correct to say such a man would be saved by what you described and for the lack of his pagan religion, and not because of it that he could be saved.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524698' date='May 11 2008, 01:27 AM']alright thanks apotheoun. I'm going to have to do some more reading and if you don't mind I'd like to pass along your posts to someone who I believe can help me digest it a little bit better. I'm sure this is due to a lack of understanding on my part but I'm having a really difficult time justifying what I think you are saying in accordance with what I thought was true Catholic teaching. Anyways, I'll be back hopefully after I've understood this a little better. peace[/quote]
I am sure it is difficult for you, because most Latins are ignorant of the beliefs of Eastern Christians; and so, it must be somewhat shocking to discover that hell itself is a form of redemption, i.e., redemption from non-being (cf. St. John Chrsystom, [i]Homily 9 on 1st Corinthians[/i]), but part of the joy of life is that it is filled with new discoveries.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1524695' date='May 11 2008, 02:20 AM']I would not use the word "place" necessarily in order to describe it; instead, I would simply say that God Himself is man's end.[/quote]

I have heard ArchBishop Sheen describe it similarly. So this makes sense.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1524701' date='May 11 2008, 01:36 AM']So that as to understand, would not it be correct to say such a man would be saved by what you described and for the lack of his pagan religion, and not because of it that he could be saved.[/quote]
He would be saved because he participated in God's energy by living a life of virtue, and because "God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, [and] his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments" (Pius IX, [i]Quanto Conficiamur Moerore[/i], no. 7).

[goldenchild17]

okay well I don't know what I think of all that just yet, but answer me one more question for now, if you would. What is baptism and how does it play into all this? What is it's significance? Because of original sin is simply the inheritance of death, then what good is baptism, because we still die whether we are baptised or not, are we not? thanks

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1524697' date='May 11 2008, 02:23 AM']I disagree. If through no fault of his own a man has no access to baptism, he will be judged by God according to his manner of life, and whether or not he cooperated with the divine energies given to him in an extraordinary fashion.[/quote]


Quoting from St John Chyrsostom's commentary on John 3:5 (link posted earlier):

[color="#0000FF"]"[And] do ye who have not yet been deemed worthy, do all things that you may be so, that we may be one body, that we may be brethren. For as long as we are divided in this respect, though a man be father, or son, or brother, or anything else, he is no true kinsman, as being cut off from that relationship which is from above. What advantages it to be bound by the ties of earthly family, if we are not joined by those of the spiritual? what profits nearness of kin on earth, if we are to be strangers in heaven? [b]For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful[/b]. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City (...) [b]We risk no common danger; for if it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.[/b]"[/color]

Edited May 11, 2008 by mortify

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524705' date='May 11 2008, 01:43 AM']okay well I don't know what I think of all that just yet, but answer me one more question for now, if you would. What is baptism and how does it play into all this? What is it's significance? Because of original sin is simply the inheritance of death, then what good is baptism, because we still die whether we are baptised or not, are we not? thanks[/quote]
Your questions have already been answered in the text that I quoted from Fr. Meyendorff:

"The contrast with Western tradition on this point is brought into sharp focus when Eastern authors discuss the meaning of baptism. Augustine’s arguments in favor of infant baptism were taken from the text of the creeds (baptism for "the remission of sins") and from his understanding of Romans 5:12. Children are born sinful, not because they have sinned personally, but because they have sinned "in Adam"; their baptism is therefore also a baptism "for the remission of sins." At the same time, an Eastern contemporary of Augustine’s, Theodoret of Cyrus, [b][i]flatly denies that the creedal formula "for the remission of sins" is applicable to infant baptism[/i][/b]. For Theodoret, in fact, [b][i]the "remission of sins" is only a side effect of baptism, fully real in cases of adult baptism[/i][/b], which is the norm, of course, in the early Church and which indeed "remits sins." [b][i]But the principal meaning of baptism is wider and more positive[/i][/b]: "[i]If the only meaning of baptism is the remission of sins[/i]," writes Theodoret, "[i]why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. [b]In it, there are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master’s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or rather it is light itself[/b][/i]."

Infant baptism imparts the divine life, the mantle of salvation, the divine adoption, the tunic of gladness, the garment of light, and is a type of the resurrection, etc., but in the case of infant baptism there is no sin to be washed away.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1524707' date='May 11 2008, 01:48 AM']Quoting from St John Chyrsostom's commentary on John 3:5 (link posted earlier):

[color="#0000FF"]"[And] do ye who have not yet been deemed worthy, do all things that you may be so, that we may be one body, that we may be brethren. For as long as we are divided in this respect, though a man be father, or son, or brother, or anything else, he is no true kinsman, as being cut off from that relationship which is from above. What advantages it to be bound by the ties of earthly family, if we are not joined by those of the spiritual? what profits nearness of kin on earth, if we are to be strangers in heaven? [b]For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful[/b]. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City (...) [b]We risk no common danger; for if it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.[/b]"[/color][/quote]
Yes, I read the text you quoted, but as I said already, the Church is bound by the sacraments, but God is not, for He is absolutely free to impart His grace in any way that He wishes. My comment is not all that unusual, because the Latin Church's [i]Catechism[/i] expresses this same idea (cf. CCC #1257).