/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Thanks OP, now I know definitively that catholic theology demands God damns innocent babies

This is argument enough for any moral man to dismiss catholicism

>>747348

Theology doesn't demand, it comprehends the will of God.

How would you say we are born of original sin, if this sin does not damn us in the beginning of our life?

>>747349

I don't say we are born of original sin

>>747350

How would you take the Fall of man in a personal reflection? How does this fall apply explicitly to our selves?

Genesis is to be interpated for all ages to come with a personal revelation.

What is your interpretation?

You are on the far fringe of my Brothers and Sisters, I do not condemn, I am just curious.

>>747348

>any moral man even existing

Lmao @ ur life

>>747351

If you're a catholic in the platonist line of augustine you are doctrinally bound to condemn me as a pelagian.

What do you mean personal revelation? The scriptures are God's word with right and wrong interpretations, not subjective.

>>747352

man is created with natural moral impulses that he can reject and become reprobate

murder and rape are bad, you don't need special revelation to know this

>>747354

I'm not quite a Catholic, I do not know why you would care about my theological back ground.

>What do you mean personal revelation? The scriptures are God's word with right and wrong interpretations, not subjective.

Personal revelation, as a profound insight on a theological concept. Nothing to do with subjective ideas.

>>747355

Interesting. I did not know this

>>747356

I presumed you were the OP

"revelation" implies divine origin, is that what you mean? If so my answer is that I'm a cessationist and reject prophecy today.

>>747353

Augustine was wrong about original sin meaning that we all receive Adam's guilt and sinfulness. No infant is guilty of personal sin.

However, original's sin consequence is death and Hell, which cannot be avoided without baptism.

>>747355

By "guilt" medieval Catholic theology means the consequences of the act. Do you deny that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin?

From my Orthodox catechism:

>Q: Is Baptism obligatory for salvation?

>A: In Baptism, man purifies himself of the dirt of original sin and receives all the consequences of the redemptive feat of Jesus Christ, he becomes a child of Light and no longer a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Like an egg that was laid and needs to hatch, man who is born of the flesh must be born again of the Spirit (John 3:1-5). Without this rebirth, he will remain excluded from spiritual life and union with Christ. Such a man will not be able to inherit the Kingdom of heaven, accoding to Jesus Christ. Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

>. . .

>Q: Must we baptize children?

A: Children are normally those we must baptize first, because every man is already brought forth in iniquity (Psalm 51:5) and enters the world with a human nature that is already damaged by original sin. How could a pure man come out of a defiled being? None can come out of it. (Job 14:4)

>. . .

>Q: Are unbaptized children innocent?

A: No. The apostle calls them unclean (1 Corinthians 7:14).

You have modernists who try to change the teaching of the Church though. For instance this despicable article from the Antiochian Church's website:

http://ww1.antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes

Please pray that modernism does not poison our Church from within and that we keep adhering to the ecumenical canons of the Fathers.

>>747358

Personal revelation has nothing to do with Prophecy.

It is grace given insight. Like how ones relationship with The Son deepens only by grace.

>>747361

Systematic theology 101

2 forms of revelation: special and general/natural

natural revelation is observable, "creation exists" "man has moral leanings"

special revelation is messages from God (prophecy, scripture). This is always intended for a broad audience in the Bible.

This "personal revelation" idea of yours is foreign to the Bible, so I ask again, are you really meaning to use the word "revelation"?

Are you not a native english speaker?

>>747348

PAPISTS BTFO

>>747365

>which was never necessary to justify Mary's purity

Why?

>>747365

Immaculate Conception is due to a "pessimist" view of the original sin that does originate with Augustine. In this view man has *completely* and absolutely lost God's grace, so that one absolutely cannot see the light without baptism. That is where their more pessimist view of Hell comes from, and also why they believe that Mary couldn't have answered positively to the annunciation if she were not absolutely perfect to the point of being free of original sin.

>>747348

if all babies automatically go to heaven, what's wrong with abortion? or any other infant dying?

>>747359

>No infant is guilty of personal sin.

then why mourn the deaths of children (from a purely theological pov) they have eternal beatitude from the get-go, this is far superior to any one of us.

>>747359

>No infant is guilty of personal sin.

oh, additionally you are also implying that the growth of reason in a man is inherently corrupting…

Jesus Christ is Logos, remember? The only end result of your custom teaching is some sort of clown fideist/pelagianism.

>>747369

… Did you see my post above?

>>747359

They go to Hell because they suffer the consequences of original sin. Their soul is weakened by this inherited weight, so to speak. And of course see the OP.

>>747369

>What's wrong with abortion or…

It's still murder just like executing saved adults as martyrs

>>747376

>Mary wasn't guilty of sin

How is that not a direct contradiction with Romans 3:23?

>>747346

How should this be interpreted considering Acts 12:15 implies dead good humans become angels. Does this mean dead unbaptized babies are demons?

>>747364

Go google personal revalation

>>747382

see

>>747379

>>747382

What? No. Jewish belief at the time was that every individual had a heavenly counterpart that looked like them and guided them in life. This is about guardian angels, not whatever nonsense you came up with.

>>747387

>Jewish belief at the time was that every individual had a heavenly counterpart that looked like them and guided them in life.

That’s literally you, but with the beatific vision.

>>747374

oh woops :)

>>747389

both of your claims are reaching

nobody preaches that saints are angels, but they become "like" angels, per the words of Jesus Christ.

>>747390

Then isn’t the only difference one spent a few years on Earth? Unborn babies wouldn’t even have that. There’d be even less difference between them and demons.

>>747392

You don't even know what demons do, do you? Fallen angels act like the inverse of the Angels of God, they work for Satan, roaming the world looking for souls to devour.

once you get sent to Hell, you don't come back out, unless your Satan and your specific curse is roaming the world until the Second Coming

>>747393

I don’t believe in hell being a containment construct. It conflicts with too much theology. Once exorcised demons go to hell. They still return and oppress more people.

>>747395

>I don’t believe in hell being a containment construct.

what does "lake of eternal fire" sound like to you?

or how even in days before Christ the reprobate were partitioned away from the elect in Abraham's bosom?

>It conflicts with too much theology.

whose? Bishop Barron's? I respect the guy, but exorcists disagree.

>Once exorcised demons go to hell. They still return and oppress more people.

you make it sound like you know exactly how many demons infest the world…you don't, and neither do we.

>>747396

The same 7 demons (and more) keep returning even though they are frequently exorcised and sent to hell. Lake of eternal fire could mean eternal suffering not eternal containment.

Why are you using an Orthodox icon to post alongside this Roman heretical garbage? Cease and desist.

>>747398

It's not the same 7 demons, it's "the unclean spirit returns with seven other demons more wicked than himself".

emphasis on "other demons"

>>747402

I was referring to the seven princes of hell who are frequently exorcized not your verse.

>>747404

that's an occult esoteric tradition not found in the Church nor the Scriptures.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23647/who-are-the-seven-princes-of-hell

>>747388

Sorry I just got home, yeah I've been meaning private revelation the entire time. Sorry for the language difference.

>>747409

there are differing demons of various things, not necessarily the same demon over and over

Fr. Ripperger says that when an Exorcist does his job, the demon is literally placed at the foot of the Cross to be sent to hell by Christ

>>747359

Which is greater. Baptism by the holy spirit, or baptism by water?

The flesh is dead, anon. The spirit is alive.

>>747401

>Roman heretical garbage

this is pre schism canon

>>747411

He also acknowledges the seven archdemons and even goes into detail about how they took over America. Fr. Amorth talks about them as well and says he exorcised the same ones on numerous occasions and I'm fairly certain Fr. Ripperger said he has too.

If your church teaches that jews are anything but the devil, you and everyone there is damned.

If your church teaches that jesus was a jew, you and everyone there is damned.

>>747415

You're spooking me, Anon. I don't think there's a single church in New England that teaches anything but what you're saying.

>>747418

one of the fathers at my parish seems like he is hiding his power level, but i can't be certain.

>>747414

then it seems we should both agree, but I'd like to ask for the video where Ripperger talks about it. Satan is understood to be also Lucifer and Beelzebub.

>>747412

Both are sacraments.

>the flesh is dead, anon

The body will not be resurrected? Nice to know, heretic.

>>747415

This is an oversimplification. People use the word "jew" to refer to both the modern Talmudists and the ancient Israelites, when in fact they follow very different religions and may or may not be related by blood. The religion of the Old Testament is no longer followed by anyone on Earth because it's impossible since the Temple no longer exists. Also you're not damned if you're not redpilled on modern Jewry, but it does open you to more easily falling for their tricks which could lead you to damnation.

>>747415

I don't understand how this is avoided or never brought up. Few name the wolves in wool coats.

Take it from the great reformer Martin Luther in 'The Jews and Their Lies'.

Or a many of other sources reagrding Christians and Jews. An obscure example: https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/the-jew-as-ally-of-the-muslim/

Or the more well known example of Russia and it's history with Jews. You can read about in '200 Years Together' by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Or you, know… You could listen and learn from Jesus through the Holy Bible.

>God chooses Jews as his people to do his works through.

>God sends his Son Jesus, becoming flesh. His chosen people deny him and murder him.

But nope.

<It says right here Jews are Gods choosen people…

Maybe they fear being the next Martin Luther or depicting Jesus Christ as an "anti-semite" despite the fact Jews are anti-Christ.

>>747420

I think it's in this one. At some point he talks about how the different demons subverted the US https://youtu.be/dyH7MUnP5Ic

>>747420

Ah I found the issue. I was thinking of Satan and the five generals, not the seven princes of hell. Fr. Amorth talks about exorcizing these demons more than once. Here's the video with the starting time where Ripperger talks about them taking over America. https://youtu.be/dyH7MUnP5Ic?t=1942

>>747421

It'll be resurected through/by the Spirit. It doesn't matter how wet you get it. I don't remember anyone dunking Jesus in water before he resurected.

Baptism by water is important. When John baptized Jesus what happened? The Holy Spirit descened upon him. Baptism by water was a symbolic gesture of the actual baptism.

>What Salavtion through Christ Jesus?

>Just add water

I'm not discounting the importance of baptism by water but that is not where your salvation comes from.

If it's done in faith to christ Jesus why would he deny it? Why wouldn't he honor it?

>heretic

Galatians 2:16

…yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law/flesh but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law/flesh, because by works of the law/flesh no one will be justified.

>>747431

>Want Salavtion through Christ Jesus?

>>747420

From Amorth's book an exorcist tells his story on page 44 in my pdf he says there are heavyweights. These heavyweights have clearly possessed more than just one person throughout history. Therefore when they are banished to hell every time they are exorcized they are not prevented from eventually doing more possessions.

>When the demon has a biblical

name or one given in tradition (for example, Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Zebulun,

Meridian, Asmodeus), we are dealing with “heavyweights”, tougher to defeat. The degree

of difficulty is also relative to the intensity with which the demon possesses a person.

When several demons are present, the chief is always the last to leave.

>>747433

The greentext pooped itself.

>>747421

Luke 11:39

And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

Matthew 23:26

You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

>I don't remember anyone dunking Jesus in water before he resurected.

….

Jesus was not baptized?

Although in this case his baptism was to sanctify the waters so that we may be baptized unto His death and resurrection, but did you even read the scriptures?

>Baptism by water is important. When John baptized Jesus what happened? The Holy Spirit descened upon him. Baptism by water was a symbolic gesture of the actual baptism.

Are you saying that baptism in the name of the Trinity is exactly the same as the baptism of John?

Read Acts.

>If it's done in faith to christ Jesus why would he deny it? Why wouldn't he honor it?

What do you mean?

>yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law/flesh but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law/flesh, because by works of the law/flesh no one will be justified.

What dp you get "law/flesh" from? They aren't the same word.

And regarding this, learn the distinction between "soma" (body) and "sarx" (flesh) that Paul makes.

>>747435

… Thanks?

>>747436

>What do you mean?

>If it's done in faith to Christ Jesus

>done in faith to Christ Jesus

>done in faith

>Are you saying that baptism in the name of the Trinity is exactly the same as the baptism of John?

Did I, anon? Read it again but slower.

>What do you get "law/flesh" from? They aren't the same word.

Law in the sense that you are saying if you are baptized in water you are saved or that it is required. And flesh in the sense that you are saying it is the cleaning of the body through the law of baptism that makes you pure. When it is salvation by faith through grace not the works of faith.You are not justified by the products of your faith but by faith itself. Faith not produced by you but faith that is given to you through Christ Jesus.

Your salvation does not come through or by water. It is your faith. A faith you can only get by being baptized in the Holy Spirit, not water.

Baptism is important because it is an expression of your faith. A testament to being baptized in the Holy Spirit. It is not the act of baptism in water, it is the faith of Christ Jesus made visual through the act of baptism.

Why you do it is what matters not the act itself. But the action of baptism by water is important because what is faith without works?

There is autonomy when you are led by the spirit where you are no longer concerned with the works but with the faith, as the faith of Christ Jesus produces good works through you - works that are his. Thus you inherit the Kingdom of God.

>>747436

>thanks?

>You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

>And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

You are the bowl/cup/plate. You are dipped in water therefore you consider yourself clean?

If that's the case than every bath or shower you take is a baptism.

>>747436

and when it comes to infant baptism it's my belief that they are santified by the faith of their parents.

1 Corinthians 7:14

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

>>747449

>done in faith

Yes? I still don't get what you're trying to say.

Baptism done without faith does not work. Sacraments aren't magic.

>Did I, anon? Read it again but slower.

I have no clue what you imply here. In your view, how are the baptism of John and baptism in the name of Jesus any different?

>Law in the sense that you are saying if you are baptized in water you are saved or that it is required.

You are deluded if you think this is what the apostle is talking about. Mysteries are not law.

>Your salvation does not come through or by water.

Salvation comes from Jesus Christ. Baptism unites us to Him. Are you bothered because baptism is done with a material thing (water)?

>Baptism is important because it is an expression of your faith. A testament to being baptized in the Holy Spirit.

….. Baptism in the Holy Spirit comes -before- baptism in water? Then why did the apostles baptize first in water, then in the Holy Spirit? (Acts 19:5-7 ; 8:14-17) Why have the Catholic and Orthodox churches always consistently done baptism in the Holy Spirit (confirmation/chrismation) after baptism in water?

>>747451

Clearly you do not understand that baptism is a mystery, not a common bath.

You are not dipped in water, you are buried and resurrected with Christ through the water He sanctified.

>>747455

lmao, you're really going to link this guy? He is a really faulty source of information even if his videos are entertaining. Read a catechism instead.

>>747459

A man is in a desert without a drop of water in sight. He confesses his sinfulness to Christ asking for his forgivness and savlvation.

Does Jesus deny him becuase he wasn't baptized in water?

Luke 23:39-43

"One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Where's the baptism in water, anon?

>Are you bothered because baptism is done with a material thing (water)?

Do you have nothing but accusations?

I like water. Alot. Without it I would die.

It also serves as a great reminder that I am not God.

Thank you, Jesus, for the clean drinking water.

You're not the person I was replying to. I got confused for a second there.

>I wouldn't put this forward with any kind of regularity, but the sacraments are for the Church. Not the Lord himself. The Lord is greater than the sacraments (or rather, he is signified by them).

The Lord instituted the sacraments, and the same Lord said that without baptism, one cannot be saved, and to gather without Him is to scatter, and such other things.

> We can be sure he's working in the Church, but a tough by his Spirit could bring outsiders to that church eventually, when knowing about it otherwise was difficult.

Read Maximus the Confessor, and see also the Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the Eastern and Catholic Church. There are two types of grace - calling grace and saving grace. By His calling grace, God acts upon all people of all religions to bring them into the Orthodox Church. Once they become Orthodox they can receive His saving grace.

>Same goes with this issue of deceased children. Jesus is the high priest. He can sanctify children if he wills. The acts (or lack thereof) of a priest are not greater than the high priest.

Jesus does sanctify children… through baptism. Unbaptized children are condemned. Again, see the OP.

>>747462

You surely know that baptism of desire/blood is a thing, and that catechumens who die before baptism still receive Orthodox funerary rites, and there are even saints who died as catechumens. So what is your point exactly here?

Baptism saves. Those who seek to be baptized into the Orthodox Church but get their path cut short can be saved by the mercy of God.

As for the thief on the cross - this was still under the Old Covenant, you know that, right? The sacaments weren't instated by Christ yet.

>Do you have nothing but accusations?

Shut up and answer the question. Well, you just did, so thank you. But that sacraments are done using material things is the reasonment my non-denom friend has, so I was asking if that was the same for you too.

>>747466

I responded to the Photius thing.

>>747359

>And what happens to all the saints who had even more open ended views before this?

I know of a couple who believed that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, but so what? Saints are not infallible.

>Sts. Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa taught something close to universalism (or maybe outright universalism)

Purgatorial universalism is an acceptable view, as long as it is held as a hope and not as an official teaching of the Church, and as long as it follows the idea that Isaac the Syrian and Gregory of Nyssa had (and that Maximus the Confessor is theorized to possibly have held too), unlike Origen's version of it.

I'm not sure how this is relevant at all to the doctrine that unbaptized infants go to Hell.

>>747464

>Baptism saves

The grace and faith of Jesus Christ saves.

By faith through grace not works.

>You surely know that baptism of desire/blood is a thing

The ride never ends.

I'm not against baptism.

I'm not Catholic so I'm not familiar with your traditions. And I believe Catholocism to be a blend of Roman mythology and Christianity therefore it is tainted. I dont abscribe to your theology nor your doctrine. Salvation does not come through the Catholic church nor does it come through baptism.

>>747346

Hold on and explain further.

They're not in heaven, but where in hell are they? Is it some sort of Abraham's Bosom deal, or are they legitimately suffering in hell?

Great, attempts of papization of Orthodox church continues yet again.

>>747470

Surely you mean "by grace through faith"… And sacraments are not works.

Translated from my catechism:

>The Sacrament (from the Greek μυστήριον [mysterion]) is a sacred act in which God acts upon man with His invisible grace through the intermediary of visible matter.

>We participate to the suffering of the Son of God:

>- by sincere faith;

>- by the holy Sacraments which hide and contain the force of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3 ; 1 Corinthians 11:26);

>- by the crucifixion of the flesh with its desires and passions (Galatians 2:24). St Paul the Apostle said: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." (Galatians 2:20)

>Those who commune to the Body and Blood of the Resurrected One can perceive what St. Paul calls in his Epistle to the Colossians the Mystery of Christ (4:3): "The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints." (1:26)

>Let us not attempt to "understand" this mystery - because it is infinitely greater and more profund than human intelligence, which can only "understand", meaning "contain", that which is smaller than itself - but to contemplate it with awe, like St. Paul when he encoutered it on the road of Damascus.

>1. Christ, the son of Mary, is a man like us: all that which is in Him can be communicated to other men: that is why He can save us.

>2. This same Christ, Only Son of God, is God, the same and only God as His Father and as His Holy Spirit. That is why He can unite us to the Father.

>3. Through communion to the Body and Blood of Christ, we are incorporated to his Resurrected Body, we become a single body with Him and we participate to His divinity. This mysterious Body, which is constituted of the union of the Head (Christ) with its limbs (those who commune) is called the Church.

>4. The head of a body acts by moving its limbs. Similarly, Christ acts in the world by urging His faithful, members of His Church. Christ is present and acts in the world through His Church. The members of the latter react to the calls of the Head by listening to its Word.

>5. The limb of a body is only living if the blood from the heart passes through this limb. The members of the Church are only living if the Holy Spirit circulates in them, uniting them together and to the Head.

>6. This mysterious fact that men, who are believers but also sinners, are united, by the work of the Holy Spirit, to the Body of the Resurrected Christ, and become the limbs of a single Body, Christ, and so continue today the action of Christ in the world, so that He speaks and acts through them, is called the mystery of the Church.

>7. This mystery of Christ or mystery of the Church has several aspects that St. Paul calls (1 Corinthians 4:1) "mysteries of God", that Orthodox Christians commonly call "mysteries", that the Latin language calls sacramenta, from which we get the usual English word of sacraments.

.

>I'm not Catholic so I'm not familiar with your traditions. And I believe Catholocism to be a blend of Roman mythology and Christianity therefore it is tainted. I dont abscribe to your theology nor your doctrine. Salvation does not come through the Catholic church nor does it come through baptism.

Great. I'm not Catholic either.

>>747471

They are in Hell. They are not guilty of personal sins so surely they are not being tormented by them, but they are still excluded from the grace of God.

>In heaven

>In hell

>Heaven and hell as places

Entire premise has gone to wrong direction to begin with

>>>/trash/

>>747481

419 was before the great Schism. You can drop that image now.

>>747346

this only matters if you give your soul to the devil pope right? like if i believe the actual words of christ and not the laws of the church empire. the mystical body of christ, correct? i only come across deeper religion so far lightly because im studying the law

1261 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.

>>747348

It's also argument enough for any moral man to dismiss Calvinism (only elect babies go to heaven), and lots of mainline protestant denominations (babies do not believe therefore not saved, also some will also say you really need to get baptized).

Ironically I think Anderson is one of the denominations that would say unbaptized babies go to heaven.

>>747346

Mary K. Baxter, author of "A Divine Revelation of Heaven," describes how she saw babies in heaven, including babies from miscarriages and abortions.

>>747410

Private revelation is the same problem

It is unbiblical

>>747503

>Calvin was essentially still a Catholic in some ways

You could say the same about Arius and Luther.

>>747346

Infants are affected by original sin and you should baptize them. However, it may be possible to get into Purgatory and from there eventually Heaven for those who are not capable of knowing God during their time on Earth, provided that they obey the law of God as it's written in their hearts and don't live a life of vice. Most people think this sort of thing can only apply to some isolated Buddhist monk who's lived his whole life on a mountain and has never come into contact with the outside world. But it seems to me that infants would also be an obvious shoe in for this as well, since God has ordained it that infants aren't really capable of knowing or understanding, well, anything. Now obviously once the child grows in years and cognitive ability then it will be in danger of damnation once it becomes aware of Christianity if it isn't baptized, but while it's still an infant it may certainly be made into a Christian in Purgatory.

>>747481

>Catholic prayer book has heretical stuff

Color me surprised.

Also, Orthodox pray for those in Hell. Doesn't mean they are not in Hell to begin with.

>>747490

If you do not agree to the 7 ecumenical councils, you barely qualify as a Christian. The canon in the OP is from a local council ratified by the 7th ecumenical council.

>>747499

Implicitly why I made this thread. Catholics often teach that infants go to Heaven or to "Limbo", against the apostolic tradition of the Church.

>>747500

Exactly. But there are degrees of suffering in Hell - and without sins to be bound with, infants do not suffer as much as those who are personally responsible for their demise (but they suffer anyway). Their lot is with the devil, as the canon of Carthage says.

>>747502

Just say out loud that you reject the ecumenical councils.

>>747531

>Catholic Encyclopedia

lol

>Limbo

lol

>>747563

>Purgatory

lol

No one wants to hear your Catholic poison for the soul. Heresy is to be separated from God, as Abba Agatho said, and you are falling right into it. I strongly suggest you recant, and at the very least try to find a church that adheres to the ecumenical canons. Note: if you go to a church that kneels on Sunday, it's not it.

>>747580

Your posts reek with prelest.

Also, interesting footnote you forgot about the last part:

>The following, says Surius, is found in this place in a very ancient codex. It does not occur in the Greek, nor in Dionysius. Bruns relegates it to a foot-note.

>>747587

This part is nevertheless cited by my catechism.

And what comes before it in the canon means the same thing.

>>747584

Accusing Catholics of heresy is spiritual delusion? Who do you work for?

>>747588

>This part is nevertheless cited by my catechism.

And some catechisms here were talking about "muh holy Russia". Catechisms are not an unltate authority and some of them are outright awful.

Ecumenical councils cited Greek version of the canons which didn't include the last part concerning unbaptised infants being damned.

>>747589

>And some catechisms here were talking about "muh holy Russia". Catechisms are not an unltate authority and some of them are outright awful.

Obedience to your bishop and your spiritual father is essential. I will rather trust them than you.

>Ecumenical councils cited Greek version of the canons which didn't include the last part concerning unbaptised infants being damned.

You have read the first parts of the canon, which -do- say that infants are cleansed of the consequences of original sin and thus must be baptized. The Orthodox I speak to online who reject that unbaptized infants go to Hell also reject original sin as something inherited but rather say that we receive its consequences as we become gradually aware of sin (and of course they call me a heretic).

And what are the consequences of original sin? Death and Hell.

>>747592

>Obedience to your bishop and your spiritual father is essential. I will rather trust them than you.

And if Arius would be your bishop, would you obey him? And yet that wasn't my point.

>The Orthodox I speak to online who reject that unbaptized infants go to Hell also reject original sin as something inherited but rather say that we receive its consequences as we become gradually aware of sin.

If you want to justify original guilt you should stop accusing Catholics in other things. Bishops and clergymen I know also reject idea you are trying to spread and I repeat, VIth ecumenical council cited document that doesn't state last part which outright damns unbaptized infants. Because it is not for us to know but for God.

>>747594

Arius was a controversial figure and was condemed by a council. Among my authorities, the only controversial one is Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and he did not write on this subject.

>If you want to justify original guilt you should stop accusing Catholics in other things

No one is personally responsible of Adam's sin but Adam. Adam's sin, however, has repercussions that fall on us. Denying this is no different from what Islam teaches.

>Bishops and clergymen I know also reject idea you are trying to spread

And I accuse them of modernism and trying to appeal to what modern Catholicism teaches.

>and I repeat, VIth ecumenical council cited document that doesn't state last part which outright damns unbaptized infants

But my catechism does.

And again, what other outcome is there to get out of the first parts of the canon? What do you think happens to an infant who is still bound in the curse of original sin?

>Because it is not for us to know but for God.

The same God who said that one will -not- be saved if they are not baptized and chrismated?

>>747599

>Arius was a controversial figure and was condemed by a council.

Not an argument if we are talking about obedience.

>Adam's sin, however, has repercussions that fall on us.

That is inheriting corruptible nature.

>And I accuse them of modernism and trying to appeal to what modern Catholicism teaches.

And here your prelest shows again. Bishops and clergymen are ebil modernists, but you, you are a defender of one true faith™. And whomsoever disagrees with you, even being patriarch, he is in wrong.

>But my catechism does.

Your catechism is nota valid document and it might outright be garbage. I mentioned rambling about "muh holy Russia" and there are some actually having actual heretical trash in them. Like some that cite several statements by Osipov.

>And again, what other outcome is there to get out of the first parts of the canon?

There is no need for that because fathers simply doesn't specify what they mean by said inheritence. Because they knew what they mean and the meant same what at Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoritus of Cyrus say: we inherit our corruptible nature.

>What do you think happens to an infant who is still bound in the curse of original sin?

I am not God to judge, I shall leave it toystery for such things are about relation between God and said individual being, who's heart only God knows.

>The same God who said that one will -not- be saved if they are not baptized and chrismated

Same God who said that he takes no joy in death and damnation of anyone, who said that Kingdom of heaven are for those alike said children, and God, who shall never give up on us unless we rebuke and reject Him.

>>747602

>Not an argument if we are talking about obedience.

Councils have a higher authority than individual bishops.

>That is inheriting corruptible nature.

Yes. Our nature is inherently disfigured because of Adam's sin. I have literally never heard someone believe otherwise, even those Orthodox who believe we receive the effects of original sin gradually acknowledge that our nature is inherently corrupted, hence why we die.

>Bishops and clergymen are ebil modernists, but you, you are a defender of one true faith™. And whomsoever disagrees with you, even being patriarch, he is in wrong.

I don't stand alone. This isn't some doctrine I made up myself.

Yes, modernism is a serious issue in the Orthodox Church. You have to live under a rock to not see that.

>Your catechism is nota valid document and it might outright be garbage. I mentioned rambling about "muh holy Russia" and there are some actually having actual heretical trash in them. Like some that cite several statements by Osipov.

And if a bishop or priest finds that such a catechism is proper to use, who do you trust? Your own judgement, or a successor of the apostles?

>There is no need for that because fathers simply doesn't specify what they mean by said inheritence. Because they knew what they mean and the meant same what at Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoritus of Cyrus say: we inherit our corruptible nature.

… Yes? What do we disagree on here?

And how can a corrupted nature enter the kingdom of God?

>Same God who said that he takes no joy in death and damnation of anyone

Yes, God wills the salvation of all. That is why God's calling grace affects the whole world and calls all people to become Orthodox. But they can only receive God's saving grace in the Orthodox Church.

>who said that Kingdom of heaven are for those alike said children

But St Paul calls unbaptized children "unclean" (1 Corinthians 7:14). Children are an example because of their obedience, not because they somehow don't inherit a corrrupt nature from Adam.

>and God, who shall never give up on us unless we rebuke and reject Him.

All people inherently reject God, because, again, of the consequences of original sin, which are obstinence in sharing with the devil's lot.

>>747580

>Just say out loud that you reject the ecumenical councils.

I don't need to. I don't deny that infants need to be purified, as we all do. I only say that Christ is the High Priest, knows all hearts, lives outside past/present/future and everything about these children.. and can do what he wills. I leave it in his hands and will still pray for these children. You can't call me a heretic for simply asking God for mercy and giving him glory and ultimate authority.

Secondly, I don't view "original sin" in the same way the West does. Which creates a dialectic, if you will, where it's a purification *for God's sake* (as if all things are so repulsive and he's unable to interact until this is done). Baptism is not for God's sake. It's for our sake, to bring us from death into life.

Besides, all that, the councils were meant to reject Pelagius specifically.. who said children don't inherit the sinful nature. It's specifically addressing this, not everyone else who prays to God for mercy.

>>747667

>I don't deny that infants need to be purified, as we all do.

You have said however that you deny that non-purified infants go to Hell, as we all do if we aren't purified. Why?

>I only say that Christ is the High Priest, knows all hearts, lives outside past/present/future and everything about these children.. and can do what he wills. I leave it in his hands and will still pray for these children.

Yes, but again, what He wills is that they are baptized. If they are not baptized then they are condemned. Those who aren't baptized can be saved if they sincerely seek to join the Church but see their path cut short by death - but infants do not have the reason needed to seek the Church to begin with.

>You can't call me a heretic for simply asking God for mercy and giving him glory and ultimate authority.

Of course, we pray for deceased unbaptized infants. It does not change that God Himself has already said that they are outside of His kingdom.

>Besides, all that, the councils were meant to reject Pelagius specifically.. who said children don't inherit the sinful nature. It's specifically addressing this, not everyone else who prays to God for mercy.

Infants do not pray to God for mercy. What is your point?

As for the non-Orthodox, if they sincerely pray God for mercy then they will find the Orthodox Church.

>>747346

>>747359

>>747368

>>747387

>>747421

>>747436

>>747459

>>747464

>>747467

>>747477

>>747580

>>747588

>>747592

>>747599

>>747608

>>747673

Get some Help.

>>747673

>You have said however that you deny that non-purified infants go to Hell, as we all do if we aren't purified. Why?

First, because God can purify them himself. Only Pope worshippers believe he needs a mediator all the time. And he's been known to fill children with the Holy Spirit even in the womb (John the Baptist).

Second, because "Original Sin" (in the non pozzed use of the term) is a sickness. Not a sin on it's own. It's not imputed guilt, like in Western terms (especially Calvinism with it's "Total Depravity" doctrine, and the whole "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" stuff). It's personal sins that repulse God…which infants don't have. The sickness on it's own doesn't repulse him. Adam and Eve, in their early fallen state, didn't repulse God to the point where he couldn't even look at them (like a Calvinist would say). No, he went out of his way, and sacrificed an animal and provided them clothing and other small mercies.

>>747676

Not an argument

>>747679

>And he's been known to fill children with the Holy Spirit even in the womb (John the Baptist).

Being filled with the Holy Spirit in the Old Covenant does not mean what baptism and chrismation mean in the New Covenant. We are not only filled with the Spirit, we -become- the Spirit's resting place.

Of course, if you equate "being filled with the Holy Spirit" with "being freed of original sin" then congrats, you believe in the immaculate conception of both John the Baptist and the Theotokos.

>Second, because "Original Sin" (in the non pozzed use of the term) is a sickness. Not a sin on it's own.

And are infants infected by this disease?

If so, then they cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Their back is turned to God due to their corrupt nature, even if they are not guilty of personal sin.

>No, he went out of his way, and sacrificed an animal and provided them clothing and other small mercies.

Yes, but He didn't let them remain in Paradise. God has never turned His back on mankind and never will. However, our nature can be disfigured by Adam's fault and our sins are symptoms of this. It's not because an infant is too young to show symptoms that he is not diseased and unfit for the Kingdom.

>>747676

Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, where we can both get help.

Damn I knew abortion is really bad, but this thread showed me that is worse than I though

Not only is the mother committing a horrible sin, but also condemning her unborn child to eternity in hell…

:(

>>747700

>Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, where we can both get help.

Why are you talking about Orthodoxy, when you seem to promote Roman Catholic dogma? Just curious. Hard to tell where you're coming from tbh.

>following a branch of Christianity

>not reading the scripture yourself and following the word of G-d as correctly as you can.

>>750456

The scripture says to not not forsake assembling together, so there's no individualist option

>>747375

So a person that offers abortion services is damning himself in order to prevent thousands of humans from ever having the opportunity to sin personally?

>>750352

Wouldn't an infant be invincibly ignorant?

>>750468

Yes hypothetically

That's not a better situation for the child though, life is a gift

>>750474

And salvation is already paid for

>>750464

First comes ur personal relationship with Jesus, then u can help others.

But first is your personal relationship, then if you are unknowledgeable, church can help you from sinning, and follow Jesus, but it is never as correct as reading the scripture yourself

>>750495

Oh heck I accidentally mixed different translations. Brb.

>>750477

Acts 8:30-32

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this:

…

Can you explain to me what those bible verses just now said? You can open a bible to see the rest of acts 8 if you want.

>>750441

Roman Catholic dogma? I'm Eastern Orthodox. I was partially motivated to make this thread because of Catholics saying otherwise - that unbaptized infants are saved.

>>750477

No it's not "if you're unknowledgeable" you go to church, you go to church if you're obedient

The Bible instituted the office of bishop for teaching

>>747348

I'm a Calvinist Protestant and even I believe that babies go hell.

>>747588

>This part is nevertheless cited by my catechism.

That should concern you.

>And what comes before it in the canon means the same thing.

It does not.

>>750530

wew laddie

in order to demonstrate His grace God damns the babies He would have come unto Him to Hell.

Really makes u think

>be baby

>die in childbirth

>get sent to hell

>completely helpless to do anything to attain salvation

>God, being all knowing, knew that I would die and knew that I would go to hell

>My damnation was predestined by God

>that means that peoples fate is predestined by God

>"oh btw Calvin is a heretic :—-D"

When does Catholic theology start making sense?

>>750751

>completely helpless to do anything to attain salvation

This is what happens when you don't believe in intercessory prayer.

>>750500

>Roman Catholic dogma? I'm Eastern Orthodox. I was partially motivated to make this thread because of Catholics saying otherwise - that unbaptized infants are saved.

You're teaching Original Sin exactly like RC's do. Or Total Depravity per the Calvinists. It's no kind of orthodoxy I've heard before.

>>750867

Roman Catholics do not believe in inherited personal guilt, and neither do the Orthodox.

However, the error of Roman Catholics is to believe that the loss of grace is total, so that the Theotokos couldn't respond positively to the Annunciation unless she was absolutely made perfect already, and freed from the divine curse. Hence the false doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

I have no idea how you got total depravity out of what I have said though.

>>750871

Yes catholics do. That is their doctrine of original sin.

>>750889

They don't. What their tradition calls "guilt" means "the consequences of original sin". Their catechism even points out that we are not personally guilty of Adam's sin.

But again, I do not defend their view of sin. It's still flawed and a pessimist Augustinian view.

>>750891

Like the OP shows and the catechism says, baptism is necessary to he saved because it removes original sin. Therefore, original sin is damning.

Then again, like many times in Catholic doctrine, somewhere else just says the exact opposite and allows for Catholics to choose between mutually exclusive positions.

>>750894

>Like the OP shows and the catechism says, baptism is necessary to he saved because it removes original sin. Therefore, original sin is damning.

Yes. Original sin has disfigured human nature. I do not see how it follows that we are personally responsible of Adam's sin. If you catch AIDS because of foolish sexual escapades, and later have a child, he will be infected too. Does that make him responsible for your foolishness?

>>750919

Please read an actual, detailed account of what we believe the original sin is before commenting on it. You seem to think that we believe in a thing that is quite different from what we actually believe in.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

>>750980

(Nevermind, now I see that I misunderstood what you were saying, and can't delete my post; either way, still a worthy read for many people here, because gross, fundamental misconceptions are very common about the Catholic theology of this subject)

>>750906

And yet Mary could be arbitrarily granted freedom from original sin for the purpose of birthing Jesus.

>>751018

What? Mary was not conceived free of original sin.

>>751023

CCC 491: Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

>>751023

If you're Catholic you have to think so

>>751023

Imagine being this much of a pleb

>>747346

What about miscarriages? Still-borns?

>>751160

What about them? It wouldn't be any different.

>>751093

>>751087

What part of "I am Eastern Orthodox" and "Catholics are heretics" is unclear?

>>751160

Are they baptized? If not, they necessarily go to Hell.

>>751197

The part where you're a heretic, this isn't reddit, and you're anonymous. Also the fact that you're a heretic.

If your church teaches that anyone goes to heaven or hell when they die, you might have a problem. Heaven is to be created, it doesn't exist yet. Hell is to be made, it doesn't exist yet.

Infants are covered under inculpable ignorance. Change my mind.

>>751330

What is the "new heaven and new earth" of revelation if we don't already have a heaven?

>>751330

>Heaven is to be created

>Hell is to be made

<Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven

This is your brain on sola scriptura

>>751165

>>751197

Should I stop having relations with my wife because of all the miscarriages she has had, and the unlikelihood of her carry a child to term? Why would I want to send my offspring to hell?

>>751563

If you had children, it's because God gave them to you, and if these children should perish in the womb, it's because God called them.

You have nothing to do with it.

>>751595

not always true

What if you were aware of a genetic defect that always brought miscarriages in your wife?

>>751693

>burn in hell unbaptized baby scum!

We don't know about the details of what happens to them, there is no explicit reference to it anywhere in the truths revealed by God - the only thing we can know for sure is that generally, in the usual order of things (so leaving aside the special cases such as God giving such people the necessary grace without which it's impossible to go to Heaven - this may happen, but it would be an extraordinary intervention), God gives the grace necessary for entering Heaven through the Baptism that he has instituted. What happens to innocent people who die without it? Again, we don't know, but I don't think anyone defends fire and brimstone as a likely option. I haven't read in detail the arguments for this theory, but it seems that the most popular opinion is that they share a fate somewhat similar to the just ancient Israelites who lived in the bosom of Abraham before the gates of Heaven were opened by Christ - in Hell, but without fire and brimstone, and happy. Without the vision of God that saints in Heaven have, this happiness would be a far lesser one than they have, but still positive happiness.

>>747348

Papists eternally blown the h*ck out

>>750751

When you go back before Charlemagne evidently