Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hi PhontiniPhotini said:I'll be back this afternoon Therese. There is an interesting section in a book I've read that addresses the issue of infants and Baptism...and the instance of babies who die before they are baptised.
What I think everyone is trying to say is that, if, due to unforseen circumstances, a person is unable to go through a sacrament before falling asleep (baptism, confession, etc), we believe the Lord's grace and mercy can result in salvation for that person anyway because no matter what we do, God is ultimately in charge.Defens0rFidei said:I'm a programmer too!
I guess I don't understand your beliefs and I am not getting any answers, so I will go away.
We, of course, believe that they would receive baptism by desire . .prodromos said:Dear Therese,
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are also for the washing away of sin. Not one person who receives Holy Communion is actually worthy to receive, yet we rely on God's mercy and compassion and pray that we will not be consumed.
I recommend you read the Pre-Communion Prayers that we read ourselves and on behalf of our children and god-children before we partake of Holy Communion. I think they might help you get a better understanding of the position of all before the chalice, children and adults alike.
Earlier in the thread you quoted and Orthodox website on Baptism and suggested that what was being posted by others in this thread was at odds with the website. I hope you realise that the website did not give the complete picture any more than quoting John 3:16 would give a complete picture of salvation.
You also asked this
I would ask what you consider the status of someone awaiting baptism but was suddenly killed in a car accident on their way to church.If a baptism, chrismation, and communion happen all at once, and then the baby is fully a part of the Mystical Body of Christ . . . what would this baby's status be if the rites were interrupted and the baby only received Baptism?
What would their status be in regards to the mystical body of Christ before they actually received chrismation and communion?
Thank you . . and I fully understand that this would be the case if someone died before receiving the rest of these sacraments . .You see, there are proper procedures which should be followed, but in the end it is God who does the work and we ultimately have to rely on His mercy. Your questions seem to be trying to force the sacraments into a legalistic framework where they simply do not fit. If a sick baby dies after Baptism, before receiving the sacraments of Chrismation and Holy Communion, we have no doubt that the baby is fully a member of the Church, the body of Christ. If the baby does not die, but instead recovers, then it is necessary to complete the initiation rites as soon as possible.
The thief on the cross did not go through any of the sacraments, he was neither baptised, chrismated, nor did he have confession, yet we know that he is in paradise based on the promise of our Lord. He relied solely on God's mercy.
I do not pretend to be even a postulant at Orthodox theology, but I think you're asking almost exactly the same question as "baptism of desire" was set forth to explain.thereselittleflower said:So I wasn't asking about someone who died inbetween receiving baptism and the other sacraments, though I can certainly understand why it would seem logical to answer in this way, but I am asking about a baby who, for whatever reason does not receive the rest of the sacraments .. the are prevented by some outside issue, and perhaps their parents never bring them back . .. what is their status in regards to the Mystical Body of Christ? Are they joined to it?
QUESTION: "On page 5 (of Apostolic Succession), Rogers describes
how baptism has never been separated from an organic connection
to the life of the church. First of all, when the term 'organic
connection' is used, does the author simply mean the connection
made possible via the Holy Spirit who lives inside every
Christian? And if the Holy Spirit lives inside Protestant
Christians as well (which I believe He does), am I not in some
way, shape, or form, connected to the Church via the Holy
Spirit?"
ANSWER: By the use of the term "organic connection" concerning
the relationship of baptism and the church (page 5 of Apostolic
Succession), I mean that baptism is connected to the body of the
visible church, and not just a mystical reality that one can do
off somewhere by one's self. Baptism can be performed (normally)
only by someone who has already been baptized and thus joined
sacramentally to the body of Christ. When baptism is performed
outside the norm (in the NT and in the historic Orthodox Church),
some sacramental completion is usually necessary (laying on of
hands or chrismation, etc.). The point is, while baptism does
join us individually to Christ, it also joins us to a visible
organism, the body of Christ, the Church.
That's Fr. Gregory Rogers, actually.This is by George Rogers, EO author of Apostolic Succession, answering questions put to him about his book . .
Therese, I don't want to make it sound like we are trying to put you off, but you might do better to consult the www.oca.org website. Fr. John is very good at apologetics, and we are just laypersons--we can only do so much.Here he is saying that Baptism is what joins us to the Body of Christ, yet Chanter made a very real distinction between Baptism and the other sacraments, and it was clear to me that she was saying that we were not joined to the body of Christ at baptism . . that the act of Baptism did not join us to His body . .
Matrona said:That's Fr. Gregory Rogers, actually.
Sorry, I'm a perfectionist.
You are not putting me off at all by suggesting this . . I appreciate it and will definitely check it out . . Thank you for directing me there!Therese, I don't want to make it sound like we are trying to put you off, but you might do better to consult the www.oca.org website. Fr. John is very good at apologetics, and we are just laypersons--we can only do so much.
This is how it seems to me as well . . but they are indeed different sacraments and recognized as such . . but the way they are performed, they get rolled into one almost, one on top of the other, so it seems to me, from the outside, they are loosing their individual distinctiveness, which seems to lead to the confusing way they are spoken about to those outside . . But if I were Orthodox, I can understand why questions such as I am asking, don't really seem to matter from the Orthodox veiwpoint. . there is generally no need to go into these questions in depth . .We see baptism/chrismation/first Eucharist as almost like one big sacrament which fully joins us to the Body of Christ.
I am wondering how much we see these 3 sacraments the same or differently . . I know we don't see it as an emergency baptism . .When we look at how the Catholics do it, baptizing, and later confirming and communicating Catholic children, we see it as unnecessarily stretching this over several years. Holy Baptism is what this 'amalgamated sacrament' hinges upon--if you don't have time to go through the whole process before the candidate will die, that's why you need only do an emergency baptism--however, if the candidate survives, you need to have it finished, because this 'amalgamated sacrament' is not supposed to be interrupted like that unless need calls for it. I think we see the Catholic way of initiating children as being the spiritual equivalent of an emergency baptism.
Oh yes. Fr. Gregory wrote the Apostolic Sucession book that is published by Conciliar Press--I couldn't find any books on apostolic succession by anyone named "George Rogers" so I assume you meant Father Gregory.thereselittleflower said:LOL
I didn't know he was a Father, so I found a good resource then it seems . . ?
You're welcome. Their Q & A e-mail address is info@oca.org and Fr. John is pleased to answer any questions anyone can put to him, even an old moron like me.You are not putting me off at all by suggesting this . . I appreciate it and will definitely check it out . . Thank you for directing me there!
This is how it seems to me as well . . but they are indeed different sacraments and recognized as such . . but the way they are performed, they get rolled into one almost, one on top of the other, so it seems to me, from the outside, they are loosing their individual distinctiveness, which seems to lead to the confusing way they are spoken about to those outside . . But if I were Orthodox, I can understand why questions such as I am asking, don't really seem to matter from the Orthodox veiwpoint. . there is generally no need to go into these questions in depth . .
That's quite allright.I am wondering how much we see these 3 sacraments the same or differently . . I know we don't see it as an emergency baptism . .I don't think the Orthodox see anything dreadfully wrong with initiating children this way (I know two girls who were initiated this way in the Orthodox Church, they are Carpatho-Russian Orthodox)--just that it's unnecessary to delay it.
And I am pleased that your children will not experience the delay in their initiation sacraments.
For the record, I have never seen a baby harmed by taking communion, nor have I ever seen a baby spit up the Eucharist. And if you've ever fed a baby, you know the latter MUST be the grace of God at work.
Well . . what a small world!Matrona said:Oh yes. Fr. Gregory wrote the Apostolic Sucession book that is published by Conciliar Press--I couldn't find any books on apostolic succession by anyone named "George Rogers" so I assume you meant Father Gregory.
And if this is who you meant, yes, you did find a good resource--he is my parish priest.
I just spent some time looking through the site . . I found one quote that was interesting and helps to see the prespective of the EO a little better:You're welcome. Their Q & A e-mail address is info@oca.org and Fr. John is pleased to answer any questions anyone can put to him, even an old moron like me.
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments.htmlViewing the Church as the new and eternal life of the Kingdom of God given to man by God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, we understand first of all that for life to exist there must be birth. The birth into the eternal life of God is the mystery of baptism. But birth is not enough for living; there must be the ongoing possibility of life: its power, energy and force. Thus, the mystery of chrismation is the gift of the power to live the life of Christ which is born in man by baptism. It is the gift of the "all-holy and good and life-creating Spirit" to man.
I don't think there is anything wrong with how the EO does this . . I am now trying to better understand why the Catholic Church waits . .That's quite allright. I don't think the Orthodox see anything dreadfully wrong with initiating children this way (I know two girls who were initiated this way in the Orthodox Church, they are Carpatho-Russian Orthodox)--just that it's unnecessary to delay it.This is how it seems to me as well . . but they are indeed different sacraments and recognized as such . . but the way they are performed, they get rolled into one almost, one on top of the other, so it seems to me, from the outside, they are loosing their individual distinctiveness, which seems to lead to the confusing way they are spoken about to those outside . . But if I were Orthodox, I can understand why questions such as I am asking, don't really seem to matter from the Orthodox veiwpoint. . there is generally no need to go into these questions in depth . .
I as well!And I am pleased that your children will not experience the delay in their initiation sacraments.
LOL yes, I have fed many babies! My own and many, many others!For the record, I have never seen a baby harmed by taking communion, nor have I ever seen a baby spit up the Eucharist. And if you've ever fed a baby, you know the latter MUST be the grace of God at work.
St Gregory of Nyssa said:It is time to offer some reflections about this problem. If there is a reward for persons who have done good and if a infant who has died has done [J.82] neither good nor evil, how can such an infant expect any reward? We respond to those who consider the consequence of this matter because the good proper to human nature is intelligence and is a reward in and by itself. We can explain this by referring to two types of illnesses pertaining to vision. One person desiring to cure himself should apply a medicinal remedy provided that he has the patience. Another person with less discipline should employ baths and be subject to medical attention for restoring health to his eyes. We therefore believe that both persons have the fruit of their respective choices: the one deprived of light and the other person, its enjoyment. We apply the term reward when it does not partake of offensive behavior. Our remarks concern infants because enjoyment of this life belongs to human nature, but the illness of ignorance controls fleshly existence. However, the person who cleanses himself by an appropriate cure and removes the sore of ignorance from his clear-sighted soul is sincere and obtains a reward in this natural life. But the person who shuns purity of virtue and fosters an incurable illness of ignorance through deceptive pleasures becomes estranged from his true nature and does not share in life. One the other hand, a simple infant who is not ill [J.83] with regard to the soul's eyes participates in the light; he does not require cleansing because his soul has been healthy from birth.
This example bears a certain analogy to the life we envision. Just as at the first stage of life an infant [M.180] is nourished at the breast by milk, so does a person consume food when he becomes an adult. Thus I believe that the different stages of growth share a certain order and sequence according to one's capacity as he advances to the stage where he can enjoy a life of blessedness. We have learned this from Paul who in one way nourishes persons who have grown through virtue and in another way an infant who has not yet grown up: "I have fed you with milk, not solid food since you were not yet ready for it" [1Cor 3.2]. But for those persons who have attained maturity he says, "Solid food is for the mature" [Heb 5.14], referring to those who have trained their senses through practice.
Paul did not say that an infant and grown person are the same and that both are not ill [J.84] (for how can both enjoy the same food when they are so different?). However, when no illness afflicts them and they are alike, provided that they are free from passion, their enjoyment of food differs (For happiness consists in good words, generous deeds, giving leaders their due, allowing one's deeds to radiate by alms giving or by caring for one's wife and household. Life's pleasures also include meetings, spectacles, hunts, baths, gymnastic schools and pleasant activities of this sort. On the other hand, milk belongs to an infant content to remain quiet at its mother's breast since it is incapable of anything else.). In the same way, those who nourish souls in this life through virtue, as the Apostle says, exercise their mental faculties provided they follow a spiritual manner of living. By reason of instilled habit and personal strength they partake of divine nourishment to a greater or less extent according to their capacity. But for the soul which has not yet tasted virtue and is in an evil state, inasmuch as evil has not been present from the beginning, does not share [J.85] in virtue because the superior life which a person had from the beginning gives rise to knowledge of God and participation in him. Such a person nourishes his soul by the food of contemplation, and he develops it as much as possible.
We believe that the soul refrains from wickedness [M.181] by progressing in virtue, even though it has not yet fully shared in life, for it has not progressed through all life's stages. When speaking of the heavens, the Prophet [David] heard them declaring God's glory [Ps 18.2] and is led to contemplate the Lord of creation. By knowing him who is truly wise as seen in the wisdom of creation, a person is able to grasp through analogy the beauty of true light and comes to know by the earth's solidity [God] who made it stable and immense. He turns his mind to heaven's greatness and is led to the boundless, immeasurable power which embraces the universe. He also sees the sun's rays shining upon us and believes in God's providential concern which has reached us through them. If one light embraces the universe by a common luminous power and imparts itself to everything without distinction, then how much greater is the Maker of this light! "That he might be all in all" as the [J.86] Apostle says [1Cor 15.28] and give himself to every person according to their capacity. Anyone may consider an ear of corn, a plant's growth, a cluster of ripe grapes, the beauty of their ripeness either in their fruit or flower, a mountain herb spontaneously reaching to heaven on high, fountains at the base of mountains abundantly gushing from their hollows, rivers flowing these hollows, the sea which receives them and which stays the same bounded by the shore without overflowing its bounds. How do these observations which cannot be fully understood pertain to theological teachings about God? Can they delight a person who comprehends them and lead us to virtue? I mean geometry, astronomy, comprehension of the truth through numbers, the pursuit of what is unknown, the confirmation of what is understood and the philosophy of divinely inspired Scripture which cleanses persons instructed in divine mysteries.
Neither the person familiar with these matters nor the one led to comprehend transcendent reality through the world is simple, untrained and has an undisciplined [J.87] mind. Our argument shows that this state is not more blessed [M.184] according to the contradiction already presented, namely, that the person who is alive is better than the one who is not. For the person free from living in evil would not only be more blessed but would not possess it from the beginning. The Gospel has informed us of Judas where that which does not exist is evil [Mt 26.24]. Does a punishment which uses purification always extend to the depths of innate evil when pain does not apply to what does not exist? We therefore believe it is not right to compare an immature infant to a virtuous person.
You inquire about an infant snatched away from life and God's providential care. But if you ask about an illegitimate birth and an infant wrenched from its parents, perhaps you are asking if God is the source of evil deeds, an argument which proves to be groundless. If anyone who is carefully raised, taken care of and prayed for by his parents does not participate in life, his sickness ends in death (which alone is the cause). We offer this [J.88] example because [divine] providence is perfect; not only does it cure passions but provides a defence inasmuch it is offers genuine protection right from the beginning. For [God] who knows both the future and what will pass away thwarts an infant's development. God's foreknowledge does not hinder the evil about to be performed and takes into consideration our free will which can do evil in the future. This example is easy to illustrate. Consider a guest at a lavish banquet who is fully aware of the fare spread before him and can distinguish between what is well prepared and what is not. Furthermore, this guest has the ability to correctly choose by either accepting or rejecting the food set before him. He may have any combination of food as long as it does not make him ill; neither would he become stronger from becoming unpleasantly satiated by an wrong combination of ingredients.
We may also add that if a person is removed from a banquet due to drunkenness or is about to become intoxicated when the feast is about to end, the steward [J.89] in charge gracefully prevents any trouble from those who are intoxicated and reeling from too much alcohol. A person denied the enjoyment of a sweet odor [M.185] is not deprived of what he yearns for but condemns this injustice and is cheated by reason of his own jealousy and lack of foresight. But if anyone considers a repulsive circumstance of drunkenness when a person vomits, becomes drowsy and talks nonsense, he has the compassion to make him refrain from such immoderate behavior. Perhaps this example enables us to more easily keep our inquiry focused upon the subject of our discussion. What do we mean here? What about divine grace when parents apply all their effort and God prematurely snatches a child away before it has the chance to mature? To persons posing these questions we again refer a banquet and a table loaded with many fine delicacies (I believe that the skill of preparing food involves not just sweet and pleasant items but more bitter ingredients used by experts to stimulate appetites). Since not all things in life are agreeable but resemble either salt, something harsh, pungent, biting or [J.90] sharp for the purpose of being ingested and contributing to a rich sauce, the bowls are disguised with all sorts of ingredients. Some persons are pompous in their conceit, others provoke derangement among those who are drinking, while some vomit shameful apostasy by malicious questions. A person does not remain long at this banquet who does not comply to such behavior and leaves more quickly in order not to affect the gathering by gluttony. I believe this example reveals the operation of a perfect providence which not only cures conflicting passions but restrains them. We suggest that infants die because he [God] who makes all things removes circumstances for evil out of love for mankind. He does not give an occasion for choosing it through his providential capacity which knows the effect of a depraved inclination to produce bad deeds.
Often a person fond of banquets denounces the deceptive compulsion of greed which inclines them to evil. Thus in my opinion, they do not reveal the falsely veiled illness of avarice through its misleading cover. Many boost of expanding [J.91] their avarice even further in order to make their offspring more wealthy; they unmask their own illness which their unborn children do not necessarily inherit. Many lack successors for whom they have toiled so much; since these persons lack hope, they desire to rear numerous offspring who are unfettered by [M.188] this all-consuming illness.
If anyone freely chooses not to live well, for example, cruel tyrants, persons who are slaves to every undiscipline, inclined to anger and who do not refrain from incurable corrupt deeds, thieves, murderers, traitorous fathers, or if there is anything more detestable than putting to death their fathers, mothers, children and engaging in unlawful activities, and if such persons grow old in evil, how do such persons illumine our earlier observations? If an infant's premature death prevents him from craving this life's pleasures such as banquets, how does the banquet of life prophetically reveal that he behave in a drunken manner until reaching old age, does harm to himself, and inflicts his guests with the stale dregs of evil? (23) Our response is that God's providence does not fail to take these instances into account. The measure of evil gradually decreases through the various stages of life [J.92] and restores purity through the fullness of those who have been saved, a fact which is evident for those who realize God's power. For who is unattentive to God's nature while contemplating his works and is blind to his surpassing power by a flawed inclination of the will? If anyone wish to seek in a human manner, he will find it more difficult to discover the existence of heaven, earth and everything in creation and to lead the deceived soul back to life so that [God's] loving will might not be in vain. Whoever lacks divine assistance has an abundance of evil in life. The Maker of life has bestowed life, whereas one's free choice causes harm; without this inclination man would not be completely wicked. By itself, evil lacks existence but is the result of choice when one decides to live in sin. Thus if God does not cause evil, no longer would there be good reason for it to exist in a person.
But why, as you say, does [God's] compassionate providence snatch someone away before his will develops the ability to do evil and [J.93] permits this to happen to a person who has not yet been born [cf. Mt 26.24]? We respond to these more plausible objections by saying that there is often a better goal in mind for those who have lived well. Divinely inspired Scripture provides many witnesses where we learn about God's care for those worthy to share it. Since the text makes conjectures about unclear matters, our minds frequently lack proof. Not only is God gracious to parents responsible for bring a human being into existence by taking away a person from living immorally, but if nothing of the sort is found when they have been prematurely snatched away, it is sensible to consider which is more difficult: persons restrained from an immoral life or those known for living in sin. Many instances have taught us that nothing happens without God's aid. It is not without chance and logic that divine care administers everything when we know that God is the reason, wisdom, virtue and truth. He does not lack purpose, wisdom, virtue, truth, remains active and is not connected with anything untruthful.
Whether anyone is snatched away as a result of what we have already mentioned or for some other reason, [J.94] we should admit that these calamities happen for a better purpose. I know another reason taught by the wise Apostle, namely, that some persons abounding in iniquity were permitted to live [M.189] according to their own free choice [Rom 9.14,19]. For a person trained in the teaching of Letter to the Romans who has subjected himself to what is contrary to it, can be accused of evil. If evil is from God, nothing would then exist because he would be irresponsible for governing creation; thus a more profound examination of this matter would dissolve any objections. [Paul] says that God bestows to each person what he deserves and gives evil to some by his good intent [Rom 2.6ff]. Therefore he inflicted evil to newly born children, especially the Egyptian tyrant's son, to teach Israel by this calamity because there were very numerous [Rom 9.17]. God's power is equally made known through all persons and is beneficial for those worthy of it. He inflicts punishment due to evil behavior because it benefits the people which left Egypt, not that the Egyptians were evil in their ways. Therefore God's adversary, [J.95] Pharaoh, served as a champion and ally for those who did good; in this instance the two-fold operation of God became evident, and Israel obtained knowledge of it. He [Pharaoh] learned what is better for himself and seeing what is more lamentable and deserving of chastisement, realized God's superabundant wisdom which puts evil at the service of those who perform good deeds. Take the example of an artisan's work (if the Apostle's words confirm ours) who skillfully beats iron and makes it pliant for useful implements. Since this rigid material is not malleable, it is not easily softened by fire and fashioned into a functional instrument by reason of its hardness which is the goal of this trade; he uses an anvil so that by hitting iron, it becomes easily worked and soft, thereby resulting in a practical implement.
But someone may say that we cannot eradicate every depravity from life since virtuous persons cannot attain it by their own efforts. What, then, is the advantage for people to live dishonorably? Allow me to add something more sublime to these human views. The great David prophetically said that happiness lies in virtuous deeds when he contrasts the destruction of condemned persons with [J.96] those who are good: "The just man will rejoice when he sees vengeance on the impious; he will wash his hands in the blood of the sinner" [Ps 57.11]. He does not rejoice over their sorrows but realizes the result of living virtuously. These words signify that the acquisition of joy and its increase for virtuous persons is opposed to those living in evil. [David] says "He will wash his hands in the blood of the sinner," showing that purity attained by virtuous deeds consists in the destruction of sin. Washing signifies a reflection of purity. No one washes in blood except to defile himself, making the blessedness of virtue clear by this comparison with sinful persons.
We have added these remarks to the subject of our essay in order to remember them more easily. The death of infants prevents grief from afflicting them their life is over; neither do they share that virtue which belongs to those who have been purified because God's foresight had prevented them from an excess of evil should they have lived. The evil path of some persons thwarts this because thanks to their parents, they are prevented from doing harm. But in some instances, their parents do not teach them to confide in God nor to live properly. Often a person known for his cruel behavior would go unchecked, but a vile death prevents this. Also, if some attained [J.97] the highest degree of depravity, consideration of the Apostle's words offers consolation by mentioning [God] who made everything in wisdom and who brought about good through evil [cf. Ps 103.24]. If anyone persists in immoderate evil and is of no value for God's purpose, we mention those who have lived well who, as the Prophet [David] suggests, are by no means insignificant nor unsuitable for revealing God's providence.
Reminds me of a quote by St. Augustine - "There are wolves within the Church and sheep without.".. what is their status in regards to the Mystical Body of Christ? Are they joined to it?
I agree completely!Anonykat said:Whoever suggested to ask Fr. John at oca.org had a wonderful idea - he's great! And I too am a "moron" who has had things spelled out for me by him - many times!
Reminds me of a quote by St. Augustine - "There are wolves within the Church and sheep without."
God is the ultimate judge, and we do not dare to try. We can give our children the grace of the sacraments and raise them right, but being a member of the Church is not an ultimate guarantee. We do not go to confession and baptize and partake of the Eucharist to try to escape a place called Hell, but rather to ensure that when we meet God, the experience is heavenly- that we are "divinized" and ready to be in His presence - that we may find His Love warm and divine, rather than finding that it burns us.
I also feel the same way . .I would not worry about when the exact moment was that my child became part of the Church, on the day s/he is baptized, chrismated, and communed for the first time - I would be more concerned about s/he "working out their salvation with fear and trembling" throughout their life.
I am looking forward to this .. and I think that our different ways of thinking, looking at life, creates misunderstanding where none need be. .A few suggestions: Try reading "Common Ground" by Jordan Bajis. It explains Eastern Christianity in terms Western Christians can understand. I think the problem here is not that things are contradicting each other, but that you are seeing Eastern Christian concepts through Western Christian eyes. It is an entirely different ethos. Frederica Mathewes-Green (one of my favorite people in the world!) wrote an article about the Eastern ethos a while back. If I can dig it up, I'll post it.
There is also a book called "Two Paths" by Michael Whelton, that examines Latin Christianity in the light of Orthodox Christianity. I have not been able to read it yet, though (my fiance "borrowed" it about 6 months ago....), but it looked good.
Hope this helps.
Before we finish this chapter, I think we shoul look at the subject of the death of infants according to the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa. This subject as he develops it and as we shall present it in what follows, has a bearing on what has been said in this chapter about death and the separation of the soul from the body. On the one hand, it will be a summing up of basic points in the teaching of the Fathers about the separation of the soul from the body which we have been discussing, and on the other hand, several further interesting aspects which concern us will be brought out.
There is a small treatise by St Gregory of Nyssa entitled Concerning infants snatched away prematurely, that is to say, taken from life before they had tasted the life for which they were born. The treatise was written for Governor Hierios of Cappadocia, who had asked St Gregory of Nyssa what we ought to know about those who depart from life very early, whose death is joined with their birth.
Pgs. 94-95
______
The problem is really existential. St Gregory puts it very beautifully. At his birth a human being enters on the scene of life, draws a breath of air, beginning the process of living with a cry of pain, pays the tribute of a tear to Nature, just tastes lifes sorrows before any sweets have been his, and before his joints have consolidated, tender as he is, he dies, perhaps because he has suffocated or because some illness has suddenly put a stop to his life. Along with this fact, the question is also put as to whether the infant will be judged by the Judge like other people .
And this uncertainty arises because the child has done nothing in his life, neither bad nor good. For where there is no giving, there is no giving in return. Consequently, if there is no action and choice in infants, there is no reason for them to earn what we are hoping for. In the infant enters the Kingdom of Heaven in spite of this, then it is in a more advantageous position than those who have lived and struggled in their lives. If we think in this way, everyone is better off not to live long.
After having pinpointed the questions and problems, on to give an exhaustive answer. Of course he confesses from the start that these great topics belong to the un-searchable thoughts of God, and therefore he exclaims with the Apostle: How rich and deep are the wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are His judgments, how undiscoverable His ways! Who has ever known the mind of the Lord? (Rom 11:34-35) Nevertheless, he proceeds to the matter in hand, because he believes the divine grace which illumines all who have it. Without presenting his thoughts rhetorically in antithetical words, he proceeds to deal with the topic by a rational sequence.
The first point the makes is that human nature comes from God. Furthermore, the cause of the origin of all beings is in God and not in themselves. Uncreated nature, which is Gods, surpasses every sense of dimension; it neither increases nor decreases, and indeed it is beyond any definition. By contrast, created nature is changeable, that is to say it increases and decreases. Human nature is composite, made up of heterogeneous elements, the noetic and the sensible, and it is a living image of the divine and transcendent power. Noetic nature belongs to the angelic and bodiless powers, which dwell in supramundane space, because that space is the most suitable for their bodiless nature. Here St Gregory is speaking about the body which angels have, which he calls a heavenly body subtle and light and ever-moving, because noetic nature is fine, pure, weightless and ever-moving. By contrast, sensible nature is not analgous to the noetic. Therefore in order that the earth might not be unfortunate and lack an inheritance from noetic nature, God created mankind, so that the noetic and the sensible might be united in his nature. In other words, man is a summing up of the whole creation, since he is composed of noetic and sensible.
The second point is that aim of the creation of man is that God should be glorified by noetic nature in the whole creation. Just as the body is maintained in life by the foods of the earth precisely because it is earthly, so there exists also an intelligible life by which our noetic nature is maintained. Just as the food going in and out of our body leaved a power in it, so also the noetic is given life by its participation in essential being.
Therefore the life suitable for noetic nature is participation in God. Each thing has its appropriate organ. The appropriate organ for the enjoyment of light is mans eye and not his finger or any other member of the human body. So it is that vision of God takes place through the noetic in man. Therefore life is participation and communion with God. And naturally this participation is knowledge of God at the depth at which the soul is able to contain it. Ignorance of God, of course, means non-participation in God.
Withdrawal from this life is a fall and ignorance. Since the fall of man, God has been working to cure the evil in us. It is evil to be withdrawn from God and to have no communion with Him, and the cure for this is to return into life again and attain communion with God. What is good then is to cure the noetic aspect of the soul, and of course whoever does not turn to the mystery of the Gospel word is ignorant of how to cure it.
What St Gregory of Nyssa is pointing out here-- and I think it is very important-- is that the appropriate instrument for communing with God is the noetic part of the soul. It is through this that man participates in God and acquired the knowledge of Him, which is life for him. But because the fall is mans alienation from life and his illness, which is also his death, the noetic part of his soul needs to be cured so that it may see the Light and attain participation with God.
Human nature was formed by God so that it might hope for this life and be brought towards it. This is the purpose for which man was created, to be united with God. Thus the enjoyment of this life and the fulfillment of mans purpose, which is theosis, is not a repayment and a reward, but a natural condition. And not to participate in God in not a punishment, but an illness of mans soul and of his whole being.
St Gregory takes our eyes as an example. The capacity of our eyes to see is not a prize and a reward, but a natural condition of healthy eyes. And the inability to participate in vision is not a condemnation and the result of punishment, but a mans illness. Therefore the happy life is innate and proper to those who have purified their senses. But those who have spiritually unclean eyes and do not know God do not participate in God. This is not a punishment, but a natural state of illness.
The third point, which is connected with the preceding ones, is that the good which is hoped for is by nature proper to the human race. And naturally this pleasure is, in one way, called a repayment. Enjoyment of this life is not a matter of justice, but a natural state of health of the soul. St Gregory says this because of the way the question way put: How will the infant be judged or where will he be sent, since he did neither evil nor good in his life? St Gregory says that the problem is not to be put in this way since it is not a matter of justice, but of a natural state of the health or illness of human nature.
This can be understood by the use of an example. Let us suppose that two men have an eye disease, and one of them submits to the cure and takes whatever medical science advises, even if it is disagreeable, while the other not only does not accept any advice from the doctor, but also lives intemperately. The first, for a natural reason, will enjoy his light, while the second, for a natural reason, will be deprived of his light.
This example shows clearly that it is proper to human nature to enjoy that life, while the illness of ignorance prevails in those who live according to the flesh. The person who cures and purifies his spiritual eyes and washed away the ignorance, which is the impurity of his souls spiritual perception, attains this natural life. The other, since he evades purification and live with illusory pleasures, making the illness difficult to cure, is estranged from the natural, lives a life contrary to nature and becomes a non-participant in this natural life which is communion with God.
If this is the natural course and natural ending of a man, in whom, according to his way of life, the eye of his soul is either cured or not, the case is somehow different with the infant. Since he has not had the illness in the first place and does not need to be purified and cured, he is living according to nature and therefore, as he is inexperienced in evil, he is not prevented by any illness of the soul from enjoying participation in the Light.
This teaching of St Gregory of Nyssa gives us the opportunity of underlining here that the soul of man is not impure at birth, but pure. Man from his birth experiences illumination of the nous. Therefore we see that even infants can have noetic prayer, corresponding of course to the images and representations of their age. When a person is created, his nous is in a state of illumination. We have observed infants who pray, even in their sleep. A monk of the Holy Mountain says that when small children turn their attention in some direction and laugh without a reason, it means that they see their angel. What happens in the lives of saints, for whom it is altogether natural to be with the angels, happens in little children.
Therefore orthodox theology does not teach what the theology of the West says, that man inherits guilt of the ancestral sin. For we believe that at birth a person has a pure nous: his nous is illuminated, which is the natural state. The inheritance of ancestral sin, as we said in another place, lies in the fact that the body inherits corruptibility and mortality, which, with the passage of time, and as the child grows and passions develop, darkens the noetic part of his soul. Indeed the developed passions linked with corruptibility and mortality and darkness of the environment darken the noetic part of the souls of children.
There is the problem of what happens at holy Baptism. That is to say, since infants have a pure nous which is in a state of illumination, and they have noetic prayer, then why do we baptize them?
The answer, as we see in the whole patristic tradition, is that by holy Baptism we are not getting rid of guilt from ancestral sin, but we are being grafted on to the Body of Christ, the Church, and are acquiring the power to conquer death. This is how we understand the baptism of babies. We baptize them so that they may become members of the Church, members of the Body of Christ, and they may pass over death, overcome the garments of skin, decay and mortality. That is to say that as they grow, whenever the nous becomes darkened by passions and the darkness of surroundings, they may have the ability to conquer death in Christ, to overcome the passions and to purify the noetic part of their souls once more.
If Baptism works in infants in this way, adults are prepared for Baptism by purification of the heart from passions. The, through holy Chrism, illumination of the nous is received. Furthermore, through holy Baptism they become members of the Church and being united with Christ and participating in the sacraments, they acquire the power to defeat death and attain deification. The deepest purpose of Baptism for both infants and adults is to attain deification, which is achieved only in Christ and in the Church.
Since this point is quite crucial, I may be permitted to quote the words of St Gregory of Nyssa about the purity of the souls of infants: Whereas the innocent babe has no such plague before its souls eyes obscuring its measure of light, it continues to exist in that natural life; it does not need the soundness that comes from purgation, because it never admitted the plague into its soul at all. The infants nous is pure, it has not been ill, it is distinguished by health and the natural state and therefore is not prevented at all from partaking of the divine Light.
Pgs 96-102
Thank you Photini . .Photini said:From Life After Death by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos
Chap.7, The Death of Infants
I think this is very much on target.Matrona said:What I think everyone is trying to say is that, if, due to unforseen circumstances, a person is unable to go through a sacrament before falling asleep (baptism, confession, etc), we believe the Lord's grace and mercy can result in salvation for that person anyway because no matter what we do, God is ultimately in charge.
I love this line -- it should be a part of "quotable quotes" somewhere!Even making a confession does not automatically make a person penitent--no more than sitting in a garage and saying "VROOM VROOM!" makes you a car.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?