Sorry, I keep pestering you with more questions (please let me know if it’s getting old). Since we ended on the topic of “official positions,” I was wondering how Old Believers would generally approach this topic:
The questions are fine. They are not ones I am used to thinking about, coming from a different perspective, but they are important and certainly deserve attention. I typed up a response, but it was too long for the comment, so I hope you don't mind, but I will simply make a new post with the response, which you will get in an email. (I wont include who posed the question, since I don't have permission for that...)
Thanks again for responding to me, especially when I dumped such a heavy topic right into your lap. I did have the impression that the statement I saw was just the surface of a much deeper well (and was deliberately worded to get the reader’s attention). With this added context, what I hear it saying now is that abortion is MORALLY EQUIVALENT to dooming an infant’s soul to eternal suffering in hell (regardless of whether or not this is the final outcome at the Last Judgment). I think a big source of misunderstanding is that Western Christians are conditioned to believe that written doctrinal statements capture all of reality (whereas Eastern Christians don’t necessarily have that expectation when they approach a text).
Here’s the quote from Ephrem. It’s sourced from a researcher who actually supports the patristic consensus on this topic and points him out as a possible exception:
“13. The river of humanity consists of people of all ages, with old, young, children and babes, infants in their mothers’ arms and others still unborn in the womb [lit. “conceptions in womb”]. Such is the sequence of Paradise’s fruit: firstfruits issued forth with the autumn harvest, wave upon wave, fecund with blossoms and fruit.
“14. Blessed the sinner who has received mercy there and is deemed worthy to be given access to the environs of Paradise…”
I also like how you emphasized the pastoral aspect of how you apply all this. My own views on infant vs. adult baptism have developed significantly since I’ve begun reading the Church Fathers. The standard Anabaptist belief has long been that baptism of an infant is theologically untenable because they lack the ability to repent and make a confession of faith beforehand. I will say that this viewpoint was shaped in the milieu of Latin Christendom and their experience of gross corruption within the state church. They also probably doubled down on it over the generations from the experience of being called “soul murderers” by state-sponsored Protestant and Catholic persecutors who were doing little to nothing to foster repentance and discipleship in their own baptized children.
I had always assumed the Anabaptist belief was also the belief of the early church until I read the baptismal writings of Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Origen. Tertullian stands out as someone who recommends delaying baptism until adulthood, but I can see that in his case it was more of a pastoral decision than a theological one—given his rigorist views, he wanted to avoid baptizing insufficiently catechized candidates who would fall into mortal sin. It does appear that there was greater variation and flexibility of practice before the Council of Carthage (I recall that Augustine himself and many of the 4th-5th century fathers were baptized as adults).
I will say that I and everyone in my congregation teach our children the faith as best we can and pray for their conversion in God’s good time. This was basically the approach of Augustine’s mother Monica (and perhaps it would even fall under the “catechized with prayer and given a name” section you pointed out from the Book of Needs?). In the absence of anything like the sacramental infrastructure available in Orthodoxy, I think it’s for the best, even if the theology behind it doesn’t have the historicity we once thought. But I have been praying that I can live to at least see a recognition of baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I hope someday, in God’s good time, there can be a healing of all schisms and a regathering of the Undivided Church.
So, I have another potentially much more serious question for you here. I’ve mentioned to you that my background is Anababaptist (as of this writing I am a member in good standing at a church within that tradition). I hope I’ve made it clear that I have the highest respect for your convictions, and my intention here is to learn from them. With that being said, would you be able to provide some additional clarification on how you would understand and apply this statement?
“A woman who undergoes an abortion - such a woman commits not only the murder of a human being, albeit not yet born but still a human being, but also dooms the soul of the unbaptized infant to eternal suffering in hell.”
The following are some statements I’ve seen from some contemporary Orthodox sources:
With that being said, I have had an opportunity to read the statement of the Council of Carthage of 418, which was endorsed by the Council of Trullo and Nicea II:
“Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.”
On the other hand, I also recall that one of your posts here mentioned the feast day of the child-martyrs murdered by Herod. I guess my question would be if this is a completely unnuanced position among Old Rite Believers? What would it mean for a woman who suffers a miscarriage, for example?
I think this is a nice issue to employ the method put forth by St. Vincent of Lerins:
"In the Universal Church itself, we must hold firmly to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all: for this is truly and properly catholic, as the very meaning of the word suggests, since it embraces almost everything universally. We will be faithful to this rule only if we follow universality, antiquity, and consensus. To follow universality means to recognize as true only the faith which the entire Church professes throughout the world. To follow antiquity means to in no way depart from the teachings that were surely held by our holy Fathers and ancestors. And finally, to follow consensus means to accept within antiquity only those definitions of faith and interpretations which all, or at least almost all, bishops and teachers have upheld. "
and
"But what if some question arises in the future, for which no solution can be found in antiquity, agreed upon by all? Then we must carefully examine and compare the opinions of the Fathers, who lived at different times and in different places, but who were surely in communion with the one Universal Church and were respected teachers of the faith. If it is found that not just one or two, but all together, unanimously held, wrote, taught, openly, frequently, and consistently, some matter of faith, then we must without hesitation believe that we too should hold to this same belief."
I think that in this instance it should become clear that on this issue, these criteria cannot be met. While the other articles you posted rallied around certain fathers (Chrysostom), it is fair to say that on the whole, the patristic expression of the fate of unbaptized babies is all over the map, with some holding to the literal interpretation of Christ's words that unless one is baptised, he cannot have eternal life, and at the other extreme the reference to St. Ephraim the Syrian (if true - I have never seen this in his writings, and nothing was sourced, so I am a little suspicious, but am not bothered if it is true). If there is any opinion that holds a plurality among the fathers (that I have read), it is one of ambivalence, leaving it to God, Who is more just and good than we can ever comprehend.
But context also needs to be taken into account in our own judgement against the author's position in the article, which as you rightly have highlighted, as at the harsh, and rigid end. In it, of course, he was referring to abortion, and so the force behind the words was to demonstrate the complete horror of the act. Much like homilies on God's judgement and the terrible punishments that await the unfaithful, they are perhaps most valuable as a corrective threat, for when the context is adjusted, we also speak of God's ineffable mercy and sacrifice. Both are true, which is simply impossible to reconcile in a satisfactory way, and has frustrated thinkers through the ages and will continue to do so.
In the same context, here St. Arseny Uralsky's last question in the section on Baptism from his book:
"Are parents guilty if they neglect the baptism of their children?"
"Yes, they are guilty. The 67th rule of the Nomocanon states: "If a child dies unbaptized due to negligence, such a person shall not partake of communion for three years, shall perform two hundred prostrations every day, and shall fast on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. If they run to the priest and the priest is negligent, the sin lies with the priest, and he is subject to the same canon.""
Further, he continues, "In the Prologue for May 28, it is written: "If a child is born and dies unbaptized due to the priest's negligence, it is a severe fault for that priest. But if a child dies unbaptized due to the negligence of the parents, woe to those parents. Therefore, parents should be very diligent about the baptism of their children and should observe the time, especially when death is near. For an unbaptized child belongs to the wolf's portion, but once marked with the sign, the child belongs to Christ, who protects those who bear His sign.""
And "In the Trebnik (Book of Needs) on the reverse of leaf 306, it states: "If a child dies unbaptized but has been catechized with prayer and given a name, such children are not to be commemorated in church services, but only at home with anointing of holy oil, making the sign of the cross on the chest, and burying them with their parents near the church, and they should be remembered in prayer. Therefore, parents must be very careful in this matter, so that a child does not die unbaptized, for God will hold them accountable.""
The state of the Herodian victims point to the one exception to the "must be baptized" rule that the Church has universally recognized, which is martyrdom. There is no question that these children were slaughtered for Christ, even if in this instance they themselves did not believe, or even know of Him. The blood of martyrdom is a "second baptism" as the ultimate expression of love for Christ is to suffer for Him unto death.
Now, after all that, I must say that perhaps the bigger issue here is the question about the Old Believers' position on the topic. On that, I will say that the topic of unbaptized infants, like so many other topics, simply do not have "official" positions. There is a symphony of opinions from the saints on a variety of important issues that do have final resolution because we cannot establish boundaries which bind God's judgment. The focus you will find, from an Old Believer perspective, will usually be pastoral in maintaining the strictness of piety toward sanctity from the faithful. Toward this end, it is not surprising to see a focus on the dangers of an unbaptized death - the exhortation is toward positive action from the parents so that it does not happen.
I try not to openly criticize other faiths, because it is too easy to get sucked into a hyper-focused argument around which another faith may have justification for its positions. But one criticism I will lay at the feet of the Catholic Church, is that is has an answer for almost every issue, and like a person who knows everything, they are bound to be wrong on some to most issues. There is a certain mysterious consoling wisdom to knowing that the greatest of our saints come at these issues from very different vantage points. They are difficult issues, and it is not simply a dodge to say "I don't know - It's in God's hands". It is the best we can do without a universal voice.
One other point, though. In the articles you posted, there was an almost scripted response in pointing out this philosophical position of Bl. Augustine, all without quotations. The modern propensity in so many theological issues is to use St. Augustine as a whipping boy who was the fruit of all Roman Catholic errors. This approach is obnoxious, and Augustine's writings can and should be read by the faithful. That his opinions at times diverged should not be occasion to mistreat him, for as we see in the current topic, there are many disagreements among the fathers. Nor should he be blamed for what separates the Roman West from the Church. He was not condemned for his views in his time - his controversial opinions (which form a miniscule part of the whole) should be considered just that - his opinions, and be given consideration with love and patience when they conflict with the broader universal voice. This is the same treatment we give to the the rest of the saints. It stems from a paralyzing and frankly freakish need to be anti-Catholic, or to appear that way, and has risks of its own in producing errors.
Sorry, I keep pestering you with more questions (please let me know if it’s getting old). Since we ended on the topic of “official positions,” I was wondering how Old Believers would generally approach this topic:
https://open.substack.com/pub/barrelagedfaith/p/were-the-earliest-christians-pacifists?r=uc5n2&utm_medium=ios
The questions are fine. They are not ones I am used to thinking about, coming from a different perspective, but they are important and certainly deserve attention. I typed up a response, but it was too long for the comment, so I hope you don't mind, but I will simply make a new post with the response, which you will get in an email. (I wont include who posed the question, since I don't have permission for that...)
Thanks again for responding to me, especially when I dumped such a heavy topic right into your lap. I did have the impression that the statement I saw was just the surface of a much deeper well (and was deliberately worded to get the reader’s attention). With this added context, what I hear it saying now is that abortion is MORALLY EQUIVALENT to dooming an infant’s soul to eternal suffering in hell (regardless of whether or not this is the final outcome at the Last Judgment). I think a big source of misunderstanding is that Western Christians are conditioned to believe that written doctrinal statements capture all of reality (whereas Eastern Christians don’t necessarily have that expectation when they approach a text).
Here’s the quote from Ephrem. It’s sourced from a researcher who actually supports the patristic consensus on this topic and points him out as a possible exception:
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/12/02/ephrem-the-syrians-hymns-on-paradise-highlights/
“13. The river of humanity consists of people of all ages, with old, young, children and babes, infants in their mothers’ arms and others still unborn in the womb [lit. “conceptions in womb”]. Such is the sequence of Paradise’s fruit: firstfruits issued forth with the autumn harvest, wave upon wave, fecund with blossoms and fruit.
“14. Blessed the sinner who has received mercy there and is deemed worthy to be given access to the environs of Paradise…”
I also like how you emphasized the pastoral aspect of how you apply all this. My own views on infant vs. adult baptism have developed significantly since I’ve begun reading the Church Fathers. The standard Anabaptist belief has long been that baptism of an infant is theologically untenable because they lack the ability to repent and make a confession of faith beforehand. I will say that this viewpoint was shaped in the milieu of Latin Christendom and their experience of gross corruption within the state church. They also probably doubled down on it over the generations from the experience of being called “soul murderers” by state-sponsored Protestant and Catholic persecutors who were doing little to nothing to foster repentance and discipleship in their own baptized children.
I had always assumed the Anabaptist belief was also the belief of the early church until I read the baptismal writings of Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Origen. Tertullian stands out as someone who recommends delaying baptism until adulthood, but I can see that in his case it was more of a pastoral decision than a theological one—given his rigorist views, he wanted to avoid baptizing insufficiently catechized candidates who would fall into mortal sin. It does appear that there was greater variation and flexibility of practice before the Council of Carthage (I recall that Augustine himself and many of the 4th-5th century fathers were baptized as adults).
I will say that I and everyone in my congregation teach our children the faith as best we can and pray for their conversion in God’s good time. This was basically the approach of Augustine’s mother Monica (and perhaps it would even fall under the “catechized with prayer and given a name” section you pointed out from the Book of Needs?). In the absence of anything like the sacramental infrastructure available in Orthodoxy, I think it’s for the best, even if the theology behind it doesn’t have the historicity we once thought. But I have been praying that I can live to at least see a recognition of baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I hope someday, in God’s good time, there can be a healing of all schisms and a regathering of the Undivided Church.
So, I have another potentially much more serious question for you here. I’ve mentioned to you that my background is Anababaptist (as of this writing I am a member in good standing at a church within that tradition). I hope I’ve made it clear that I have the highest respect for your convictions, and my intention here is to learn from them. With that being said, would you be able to provide some additional clarification on how you would understand and apply this statement?
“A woman who undergoes an abortion - such a woman commits not only the murder of a human being, albeit not yet born but still a human being, but also dooms the soul of the unbaptized infant to eternal suffering in hell.”
The following are some statements I’ve seen from some contemporary Orthodox sources:
https://www.pravmir.com/do-infants-go-to-hell-if-they-die-before-baptism-the-doctrine-of-original-sin-re-examined/
https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/do-unbaptized-babies-go-to-hell/
https://catalog.obitel-minsk.com/blog/2019/07/where-do-departed-unbaptized-infants-go#:~:text=However%2C%20St.,the%20measure%20of%20their%20bliss.
With that being said, I have had an opportunity to read the statement of the Council of Carthage of 418, which was endorsed by the Council of Trullo and Nicea II:
“Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.”
On the other hand, I also recall that one of your posts here mentioned the feast day of the child-martyrs murdered by Herod. I guess my question would be if this is a completely unnuanced position among Old Rite Believers? What would it mean for a woman who suffers a miscarriage, for example?
I think this is a nice issue to employ the method put forth by St. Vincent of Lerins:
"In the Universal Church itself, we must hold firmly to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all: for this is truly and properly catholic, as the very meaning of the word suggests, since it embraces almost everything universally. We will be faithful to this rule only if we follow universality, antiquity, and consensus. To follow universality means to recognize as true only the faith which the entire Church professes throughout the world. To follow antiquity means to in no way depart from the teachings that were surely held by our holy Fathers and ancestors. And finally, to follow consensus means to accept within antiquity only those definitions of faith and interpretations which all, or at least almost all, bishops and teachers have upheld. "
and
"But what if some question arises in the future, for which no solution can be found in antiquity, agreed upon by all? Then we must carefully examine and compare the opinions of the Fathers, who lived at different times and in different places, but who were surely in communion with the one Universal Church and were respected teachers of the faith. If it is found that not just one or two, but all together, unanimously held, wrote, taught, openly, frequently, and consistently, some matter of faith, then we must without hesitation believe that we too should hold to this same belief."
I think that in this instance it should become clear that on this issue, these criteria cannot be met. While the other articles you posted rallied around certain fathers (Chrysostom), it is fair to say that on the whole, the patristic expression of the fate of unbaptized babies is all over the map, with some holding to the literal interpretation of Christ's words that unless one is baptised, he cannot have eternal life, and at the other extreme the reference to St. Ephraim the Syrian (if true - I have never seen this in his writings, and nothing was sourced, so I am a little suspicious, but am not bothered if it is true). If there is any opinion that holds a plurality among the fathers (that I have read), it is one of ambivalence, leaving it to God, Who is more just and good than we can ever comprehend.
But context also needs to be taken into account in our own judgement against the author's position in the article, which as you rightly have highlighted, as at the harsh, and rigid end. In it, of course, he was referring to abortion, and so the force behind the words was to demonstrate the complete horror of the act. Much like homilies on God's judgement and the terrible punishments that await the unfaithful, they are perhaps most valuable as a corrective threat, for when the context is adjusted, we also speak of God's ineffable mercy and sacrifice. Both are true, which is simply impossible to reconcile in a satisfactory way, and has frustrated thinkers through the ages and will continue to do so.
In the same context, here St. Arseny Uralsky's last question in the section on Baptism from his book:
"Are parents guilty if they neglect the baptism of their children?"
"Yes, they are guilty. The 67th rule of the Nomocanon states: "If a child dies unbaptized due to negligence, such a person shall not partake of communion for three years, shall perform two hundred prostrations every day, and shall fast on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. If they run to the priest and the priest is negligent, the sin lies with the priest, and he is subject to the same canon.""
Further, he continues, "In the Prologue for May 28, it is written: "If a child is born and dies unbaptized due to the priest's negligence, it is a severe fault for that priest. But if a child dies unbaptized due to the negligence of the parents, woe to those parents. Therefore, parents should be very diligent about the baptism of their children and should observe the time, especially when death is near. For an unbaptized child belongs to the wolf's portion, but once marked with the sign, the child belongs to Christ, who protects those who bear His sign.""
And "In the Trebnik (Book of Needs) on the reverse of leaf 306, it states: "If a child dies unbaptized but has been catechized with prayer and given a name, such children are not to be commemorated in church services, but only at home with anointing of holy oil, making the sign of the cross on the chest, and burying them with their parents near the church, and they should be remembered in prayer. Therefore, parents must be very careful in this matter, so that a child does not die unbaptized, for God will hold them accountable.""
The state of the Herodian victims point to the one exception to the "must be baptized" rule that the Church has universally recognized, which is martyrdom. There is no question that these children were slaughtered for Christ, even if in this instance they themselves did not believe, or even know of Him. The blood of martyrdom is a "second baptism" as the ultimate expression of love for Christ is to suffer for Him unto death.
Now, after all that, I must say that perhaps the bigger issue here is the question about the Old Believers' position on the topic. On that, I will say that the topic of unbaptized infants, like so many other topics, simply do not have "official" positions. There is a symphony of opinions from the saints on a variety of important issues that do have final resolution because we cannot establish boundaries which bind God's judgment. The focus you will find, from an Old Believer perspective, will usually be pastoral in maintaining the strictness of piety toward sanctity from the faithful. Toward this end, it is not surprising to see a focus on the dangers of an unbaptized death - the exhortation is toward positive action from the parents so that it does not happen.
I try not to openly criticize other faiths, because it is too easy to get sucked into a hyper-focused argument around which another faith may have justification for its positions. But one criticism I will lay at the feet of the Catholic Church, is that is has an answer for almost every issue, and like a person who knows everything, they are bound to be wrong on some to most issues. There is a certain mysterious consoling wisdom to knowing that the greatest of our saints come at these issues from very different vantage points. They are difficult issues, and it is not simply a dodge to say "I don't know - It's in God's hands". It is the best we can do without a universal voice.
One other point, though. In the articles you posted, there was an almost scripted response in pointing out this philosophical position of Bl. Augustine, all without quotations. The modern propensity in so many theological issues is to use St. Augustine as a whipping boy who was the fruit of all Roman Catholic errors. This approach is obnoxious, and Augustine's writings can and should be read by the faithful. That his opinions at times diverged should not be occasion to mistreat him, for as we see in the current topic, there are many disagreements among the fathers. Nor should he be blamed for what separates the Roman West from the Church. He was not condemned for his views in his time - his controversial opinions (which form a miniscule part of the whole) should be considered just that - his opinions, and be given consideration with love and patience when they conflict with the broader universal voice. This is the same treatment we give to the the rest of the saints. It stems from a paralyzing and frankly freakish need to be anti-Catholic, or to appear that way, and has risks of its own in producing errors.