How will the Orthodox Churches re-establish full communion with the Church of Rome?

The way I see it, there are two possibilites:
1. Individual autocephalous churches, probably one-by-one, start the process.

2. Somehow, either an 8th Ecumenical Council is held with Rome, or somehow, (this is a real long shot) the world's autocephalous churches will hold a council, and agree to exact reunion terms.

With the first option, it depends on whether or not other Churches follow the leader-schisms between traditionalists and pro-union factions would form, and other autocephalous Churches probably would start the anathema process rolling.

There is also the problem of too many autocephalous churches, most of them Patriarchates that are identified with nations, rather than a smaller number of regional Patriarchates (ecclesiological centralization could be a tough pill for some Orthodox to swallow though).

Of course, this is just from an Orthodox perspecive, and assumes cteris paribus (did I spell that right?) for Rome.

Well, its late, and I need to hit the sack. Hopefully my poor thoughts make a little sense, though I probably have made some mistakes.

PS-I watched "A Man for All Seasons" for the first time last night, which for those of you who don't know, is an excellent movie about one of my favorite post-schism saints, St. Thomas More.
For a Catholic-loving Orthodox such as myself, it was a nice treat. I'm even tempted to show it to some of my Orthodox friends who aren't as ecumenically open as me!

SS Thomas More, John Fisher and Cuthbert Mayne pray to God for us!

In Christ,

Michael

"1. Individual autocephalous churches, probably one-by-one, start the process."

Highly unlikely, ISTM. The issues involved are pan-Orthodox, and I think, looking at, for example, the way that the Antiochian synod responded to the Melkite Initiative a few years ago, this is realized throughout Orthodoxy.

"Somehow, either an 8th Ecumenical Council is held with Rome, or somehow, (this is a real long shot) the world's autocephalous churches will hold a council, and agree to exact reunion terms."

I think that the dialogue will keep meeting until the issues are sufficiently narrow so as to make a council a profitable endeavor. In my view, an Orthodox council addressing this is unlikely, it will have to be a council with all of the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome.

Brendan

Well, this would all be speculation. Reunion will be the work of the Holy Spirit, who does not file a flight plan in advance.

My guess is that we may have a gradual re-convergence. Issues are narrowed, common endeavors are developed, on issues of division both sides agree that they are not applicable to the modern world. We may have false starts. Like a married couple who have seperated and decide to try to resume living together, it will be a union short of a good matrimonial relationship.

Yes some churches may move faster than others.

On the other hand, the second coming could be this Christmas, and it all becomes a dead issue.

K.

In an old political campaign, there was a phrase: "It's the economy, stupid!"

For us Christians: "It's the people, stupid!"

We absolutely have to be of the mind that we are one family. That we have to sacrifice until it really hurts. That we absolutely have to love our brethren as brethren and be willing to dismiss the stupid "Kleinigkeiten" (German: "little bitty stuff") and the administrative bureaucracy and just be there for our fellow baptized.

This applies not only to our really-close Orthodox brethren/family, but also to the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc., even those crazy Evangelicals and the snake-handlers in Appalachia.

Gee, if we're really willing to negate ourselves and to love both God and our brethren, I wonder what will happen to the "Church"?

Scary.

Blessings!

A couple years ago, I considered Orthodoxy and Catholicism to be practically one and the same thing, and I felt certain the reunion would happen. Now, having studied further, I realize that Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are two completely different religions, and I don't think the reunion will ever happen.

If it even did happen that the churches reunite, how likely is it that they will separate again, and the wheel just keeps on spinning?

Exactly. See mypost under "What kind of Catholic" as to the problems with Orthodoxy's insistance on a liberal Catholic model of church governance.

K.

That's exactly how I used to think. Praise be to God that I was led back to the Orthodox Church. It is nearly impossible to witness any kind of reunification in my lifetime or in the next.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Rum Orthodox ]

Mikhail --

"A couple years ago, I considered Orthodoxy and Catholicism to be practically one and the same thing, and I felt certain the reunion would happen. Now, having studied further, I realize that Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are two completely different religions, and I don't think the reunion will ever happen."

Well, it's not quite as polarized as either of those statements, in my opinion. Certainly we're not 'practically one and the same thing' -- at least not now we aren't. At the same time, we aren't really 'two completely different religions' -- we are two ways of experiencing the same religion, Christianity. Now, of course, Orthodox people believe that Orthodox Christianity is the true-er form of Christianity, and Catholic people believe that Catholic Christianity is the true-er form of Christianity, but we aren't two different religions.

Reunion also will likely not happen soon, but also likely will happen at some point, God willing. God wills for it to happen, which is why our hierarchs periodically find themselves arranged around tables chatting about the things that divide us. They're not just passing time, but they are trying to do the time-consuming work of coming to a better understanding of each other to ly the groundwork for hopefully growing together over time. The reason why there has been so much disillusionment about the process is that in the late 20th and early 21st century our expectations are instantaneous -- we expect instant, substantial progress, and many are very flummoxed at the seemingly quite reasonable likelihood that we are only in the salad days here and that any reunion is quite a ways -- likely a century or more -- off. But just becuse it won't happen quickly doesn't mean it won't happen at all.

"If it even did happen that the churches reunite, how likely is it that they will separate again, and the wheel just keeps on spinning?"

Always possible, but if the union is one of quality -- that is, (1) an honest union based on an honest, open common understanding of the matters that divide us coupled with (2) a genuine desire and love of the faithful of both communions for that union, then the union wil succeed. If it is a paper union, it will fail, and if it is not willed by the laity, it will also fail. But we can hope that over time these goals may, with the grace of God, be achieved.

"Exactly. See mypost under "What kind of Catholic" as to the problems with Orthodoxy's insistance on a liberal Catholic model of church governance."

Translation: To those who don't already know, Kurt presents himself, through his views, as a "liberal" (North American use) person politically. Over the course of the past few years, there have been various confrontations between Kurt and various other persons on this BBS and on another, now defunct, BBS, relating to a number of matters. In part of what might otherwise be an entertaining game, Kurt takes every opportunity that presents itself to insinuate a politically motivated 'zinger' into the conversation. In this case, Kurt takes some obvious delight at his own characterization of Orthodox parishes as adopting a liberal Catholic model of Church governance, because he wants to use this as a sword against his Orthodox interlocutors, who, here and elsewhere, have often tended to be more conservative than he is regarding a number of ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical matters. His comment is to be construed as a politically motivated back-handed slap directed against some of the participants here (and not, I would think, principally against the author of this post). That's why we have such a glib, almost one-line post about an off-topic issue inserted into an otherwise civilized discussion. It's glib because it's simply a slap.

Brendan

Brendan, from reading some material here I understand you consider yourself Orthodox. Based on your last post is it fair to say you expect Orthodoxy to "change" along side the RC's into something other than what it is now? Sure, the RC's have always changed and that would be no surprise, but do you think the Orthodox will one day, oh let's say, recognize merits?

Do you beleive the only thing deviding us are "misunderstandings" that need to be worked out?

Do you think that Orthodoxy has ever been defined by popular opinion?

Are you under the impression that the Holy Fathers were men who were simply angry and bent on cultural warfare?

And one answer to one question will make clear anyones Orthodoxy when it comes to ecumenical relations with the RC's, do you think their priests are really priests?

Just some simple questions, please, just answer them for yourself, or better yet, have your priest or bishop answer them and then you will also know your faith.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

OrthodoxyOrDeath,

I liked Brendan's answer, which comes as no surprise to forum readers.

In Orthodoxy, both opinions — non-Orthodox churches have or haven't got grace — are allowable. The Church doesn't dogmatize on the matter, and, to the annoyance of non-Orthodox involved in ecumenism, isn't particularly interested in it. The local bishop or priest has his opinion on this matter but that isn't dogma. Not like in evangelical Protestant where every pastor, indeed every layman, can dogmatize like an ecumenical council (and can and does go into schism every which way, founding one's one church). In practice, though, the pastor is the dogmatic authority: "Jesus loves me, this I know/'Cos my pastor tells me so... Yes, Jesus loves me! Don't know 'bout yoooooou.../Yes, Jesus loves me/My pastor tells me so.'

Did you used to be Protestant? Such converts to Orthodoxy often bring their longtime (lifelong) anti-Catholic bias with them. (If so, why are you participating in a Catholic-hosted forum?) Such views are rarer among born, ethnic Orthodox ( "cradles' ) . At worst there is a benign indifference — "we know this is the Church and has grace, so who cares about anywhere else?' — and at most regarding things Roman Catholic there is this attitude, "Oh, that's so beautiful! It's so close to us.'

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

OrthodoxyOrDeath,

"And one answer to one question will make clear anyones Orthodoxy when it comes to ecumenical relations with the RC's, do you think their priests are really priests?"

Then I guess you question the Orthodoxy of every Orthodox Bishop, Priest or Deacon I have ever met. And these are from every major jurisdiction in America: Greek Archdiocese, Antiochian Archdiocese, Carpatho-Russian Diocese and OCA. In fact it wasn't until I started posting to this forum I ever encountered an Orthodox who considered Catholics graceless. Every time I have attended a joint Catholic-Orthodox event every courtesy has been extended by the Orthodox to us. At the retreats for the deacon candidates at Antiochian Village we have full use of SS. Peter and Paul Chapel, with our own Antimension of course.

One question that has always troubled me. If Catholics are graceless, and I assume this includes Easterns as well, why are the Orthodox always so ready to reabsorb us without Baptism, Chrismation, or even Confession? When the Greek Catholics in Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania were forced back into their Orthodox counterparts none of this was done. The same is true when Greek Catholics returned to Orthodoxy in America. It seems at least Chrismation should be required of the graceless. I think practice shows what the Orthodox Church truly teaches even though they are uncomfortable or unwilling to admit it.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Serge, the Church does not dogmatize on the matter as it doesn't dogmatize on allot of things. Orthodoxy is very simple which is why you don't need three lawyers and a theological dictionary to understand it. Orthodoxy is a faith of spirit, sacrifice, simplicity, and tradition.

What is intriging to me about Eastern Latin Catholics is they have a tendency to try to box everything up because, like most Westerners, they want faith to be a system, and a system does not admit to anti-thesis and counterdiction. Everything must be in it's neat little box, categorized and fully indexed. In this mentality springs the need for an organizational figure such as a pope and only lips service to the real mystical unity the Orthodox have in Christ.

Now, as a matter of fact, I was baptised Orthodox and am of mostly Greek (some Russian) ancestory - I hope that qualifies my thoughts

Lance, the Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers is clear enough if you wish to see it. I would be happy to post as many examples of the Holy Fathers concerning the Latins as you would like, and there are more than I care to remember, but am afraid it will only harden you.

So please consider that I do not place much value in the example of error. These are the same people who would laugh at the Philokalia and one of it's authors, St. Basil who said writing to Nikopolitas: "I will never number with the true priests of Christ him who was ordained and received the oversight of a flock from the profane hands of heretics, unto the overthrow of the Orthodox Faith." and another author, St. Nicodemos who says: "The baptism of the Latins is one which is falsely called Baptism, and for this reason it is not acceptable either by reason of exactness or by reason of economy. It is not acceptable by reason of exactness for they are heretics." Further on he explains that neither by reason of economy is it permitted to be accepted, for the Latins do not even preserve the form of Baptism intact, inasmuch as "they do not perform the three immersions and emersions in accordance with the Apostolic Tradition. Therefore, the Latins are unbaptized;"

But just a comment on your generalization, your examples of errant menthods of the reception of converts are in the historical minority to a great extent. For most of history, the Orthodox would have a special service just to "cleanse" an area where the Latins prayed before they used the area.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Orthodoxy or Death,
Are you referring to the controversy in 18th century Greece over whether or not to re-baptize converts from the West? I think there is a document at Orthodoxinfo.com about that, and from what I remember it has to do with the Churches of Constantinople, as well as Alexandria and Jerusalem (of course). The pre-revolutionary Russian Church, though, had a much different view of revieving converts though, which reflects a view that is more open to the West, rather than being enslaved by the Ottomans. So, as far as re-baptism of converts is concerned, the various local Churches have had different views on it.

God Bless,

Michael

OrthodoxyorDeath,

1) Concerning grace of Catholic sacraments and reception into Orthodoxy:

a. Metropolitans Isaiah of Denver, Maximos of Pittsburgh, and Thedosius of Washington remove their klobuks when RC bishops/priests consecrate the Eucharist at RC masses that they happen to be guests at. What does this say about their belief in Catholic grace?

b. When Fr. Lev Gillet converted to Orthodoxy in the 1920's/30's, he merely concelebrated with the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan and afterwards was told, "you may now consider yourself Orthodox." (source: "The Jesus Prayer" by A Monk of the Eastern Church).

c. Archbishop Peter of New York wrote an excellent short article on the reception of Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy that shows that the manner or reception of RC's has varied over time and has little to do with any notion of whether or not they have grace. I would suggest you get it from a university library, or actually I belive it is in the archives of orthodox-forum on yahoo groups, from maybe September or October of 2001. Anyway, it is titled, "The Reception of Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy" and was published in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly in about 1980.

d. St. Nicholas the Hagiorite must be of course accorded respect as a saint, but he like St. Tsar Nicholas, made several earthly mistakes during his earthly tenure. One was his refusal to accept the baptism of Latins as valid. It was theologically on shakey grounds. His edition of the Rudder/Pedalion is an example of the 19th century scholastic captivity of Orthodoxy. True Orthodox Christians such as Frs. Meyendorff, Schmemann, and Florovsky did not think in these legalistic, western-ispired categories and you should really read more of their works since they maintain the true spirit of Orthodoxy.

e. St. John Maximovitch is said to have blessed himself when passing RC churches "because we known not where God's grace may reside." Why not humbly follow his suggestion?

f. Why do you say that those who accept ecumenism and Catholic sacraments are likely to ridicule the Philokalia? It seems to me that if you actually prayed with the Philokalia (which I hope you do), that your heart would be softened and you would not speak with such criticism towards your Latin brothers in the faith.

2) We are not Eastern Latin Catholics or Byzantine-rite Roman Catholics. We are simply Eastern Catholics.

3) Catholics like to make systems and Orthodox don't? Please. Orthodoxy loves to define things out the wazoo. Not that I disagree with that (since I accept the Orthodox faith and have many times thought about joining therefore the Orthodox Church), but you really should not be polemical, and trying reading some more scholarly material and lose the polemical.

4) You repeatedly make a grammatical mistake. I am not trying to be rude but I am simply wishing to educate you since you seek the same from us Catholics. You write, "These are the same people who would laugh at the Philokalia and one of it's authors..." There is no apostrophe in "it's." It should read "its author" because it is a pronoun. Remember, it's is a contraction of "it is." To remember, always sound out "it is" if you are tempted to write "it's" and see if it makes sense. If it doesn't, then use "its."

5) opinions of some fathers are not dogma. Don't use "sola my favorita churcha fathera." Use instead the criteria of "consensus of the fathers".

Have a blessed day!

anastasios

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: anastasios ]

OoD --

"Brendan, from reading some material here I understand you consider yourself Orthodox."

Well, I am a regular communicant in the Orthodox Church so I guess that makes me a member of the Laos tou Theou....

"Based on your last post is it fair to say you expect Orthodoxy to "change" along side the RC's into something other than what it is now?"

Of course not. What might happen, however, is for us to grow in our understanding of what the RCs really believe about certain things so that we can gradually narrow the issues down between our churches. And before you jump down my throat on that, let me ask you this: When Metropolitan John of Pergamon says that he thinks that the Filioque might be theologically defensible based on the most recent Vatican document (but nevertheless would probably be best omitted from the liturgical recitation of the Creed in the West to preserve some level of creedal uniformity) ... is he being heterodox when he says that? Maybe you should sit down with Metr. John and give him a talking to.

"Sure, the RC's have always changed and that would be no surprise, but do you think the Orthodox will one day, oh let's say, recognize merits?"

No, but we could one day say "let the Latins believe about merits if they want to, because that difference of opinion (which is all it is) is not sufficient to remain divided.

"Do you beleive the only thing deviding us are "misunderstandings" that need to be worked out?"

Many are misunderstandings, some are not. Honestly, the biggest issue is the Papacy -- that's not really a misunderstanding, but a concrete, brass-tacks issue that is going to take a long time to resolve, if ever. The filioque looks like it's relatively close to being resolved. If the RCs are willing to understand that we Orthodox don't teach Purgatory and have a different understanding of Original Sin (and therefore can't endorse the universality of the I.C. dogma), then we're starting to narrow the issues down. We're not there right now, but we may be there in a generation or two.

"Are you under the impression that the Holy Fathers were men who were simply angry and bent on cultural warfare?"

Of course not, but not all of the Holy Fathers had a perfect understanding of Latin theology, either. As Fr. John Meyendorff has written (btw, does he pass your 'Orthodoxy' test?), there never really was a clear understanding, by either party, of the theology of the other party during the middle ages, when most of the polemics were issued. There was a lot of misunderstanding, and people did the best that they could under the circumstances -- that's not at all a knock on them, but to deny the reality that there were some significant misunderstandings is to harbor a misplaced ignorance of the historical reality.

"And one answer to one question will make clear anyones Orthodoxy when it comes to ecumenical relations with the RC's, do you think their priests are really priests?"

And so I take it that any Orthodox who considers that the RCC has grace and has priests is no longer Orthodox? Certainly not what I have seen in Orthodoxy.

"But just a comment on your generalization, your examples of errant menthods of the reception of converts are in the historical minority to a great extent."

That is nonsense. Historically, the period of time, and geographic location, for when Catholics were received by Orthodoxy through baptism is very, very small -- largely limited to the past few centuries in Greece and occurred largely as a reaction to the Melkite schism of 1724. Russia, throughout the period, did not baptize Catholic converts, but received them through holy chrism. And prior to the revision of the Greek practice, there were many cases of intercommunion (never mind reception) throughout the Levant, and even in the Greek Islands where there were RCs due to the Venetian presence. The weight of history points clearly in the direction that for most of the history of the separation, RCs have not been received by baptism, and even when they were (as in Greece in recent centuries), that practice was not followed throughout Orthodoxy.

Having said that, the means of reception are not important one way or the other. Under Orthodox principles of ekonomia, the convert is received in the manner in which the Church provides, and this manner is not a comment on the efficacy, if any, of any prior baptism or chrismation. If one is received through chrism, for example, that action simply fills with sacramental grace any prior sacraments conferred in other churches to the degree that such sacraments may lack grace -- nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean that "Orthodoxy accepts your baptism". OTOH, when one is received by baptism (which is allowed in some jurisdictions, such as the ROCOR, upon request), it doesn't necessarily mean that the Church is saying that your prior baptism is definitely ineffective -- it *could* be that it was, and so peforming the act, out of caution, may be done -- or one may be anointed with chrism, in which case any grace lacking from the prior baptism is filled with the Holy Spirit. So the form is not determinitive at all of the Church's attitude towards non-Orthodox sacraments.

Brendan

Brendan,

I am by no means jumping down your throat so please don't think that.

There seems to be many issues and while I wish I had the time to respond to everything that you, serge, Michael King, and anatasios have to say, I am just one person.

I only have time to address the reception of Latin converts.

We must well understand that when the Church for reasons of economy accepts the baptism of heretics or schismatics, it does not mean that she accepts that their baptism was a real one from the beginning. She merely accepts that the form of the baptism need not be repeated so long as the form resembled that of Orthodox Baptism. When the form is wrong, as it is with the Latins, a proper form should be done. And this form (triple immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity, etc.) does not sanctify the heretic except only at the moment when, repentant, he is accepted into the Orthodox Church by the Chrism. Then and only then, by the sanctifying grace of the Church, is value given to that baptismal form which that man had at some time received and which was till then a dead form.

We see that even though our Church occasionally accepts repentant Papists without baptizing them, this practice does not mean at all that she accepts the priesthood of the Papal Church and its mysteries as being a true Church. We know very well, and all the Latins confess it throught their own documents, that our Church always baptized repentant Papists. We have the witness of the Papal Council in the Lateran at Rome in 1215, which reports in its fourth canon that the Easterners would never liturgize where a Westerner had previously liturgized if they had not first blessed water there for purification, and that they would rebaptize those coming into the Eastern Church as if they had no Baptism.

"Therefore:" writes St. Nicodemos, "since until then, according to the witness of those selfsame enemies [the Latins], the Easterners had been baptizing them, it is evident that for a great economy they used later the method of Chrismation ...So the need of economy having passed, exactness and the Apostolic Canons must have their place."

And then he addresses your point Brendan.

"I know what the unhired defenders of the Latin pseudo-baptism say. They argue that our Church became accustomed at times to accepting converts from the Latins with Chrism, and there is, in fact, some formulation to be found in which the terms are specified under which we will take them in. With regard to this, we simply and justly reply thus: It is enough that you admit that she received them with Chrism. Therefore, they are heretics. For why the Chrism if they were not heretics?" The defenders of the Latin deception, says the Saint, gave it to be understood that since the Church became accustomed to accepting Latins with the Holy Chrism, without rebaptizing them, this signifies that she does not consider them as heretics and as completely alien to the Church. But, answers the Saint, to whom does the Church give the Chrism? Does she not give it to those who lack the Holy Spirit? Is not the Chrism "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit"? Therefore, would she have ever chrismated them if she did not consider them as lacking the Holy Spirit, that is, as alien to the Church? The fact, therefore, that she chrismates them is the most manifest proof that she considers them heretics. Besides, it is Chrism, that gift of the Holy Spirit, which makes operative the previously dead Latin "baptism;" and which the Church only permitted by economy not to be repeated.

For a more complete answer one only needs to know, has the Church EVER accepted the baptism of heretics? Absolutley not. So then the question immediatly becomes, are the Latins heretics and here I will only offer a smirk because if they are not, then why do so many Eastern Latin Catholics join the Orthodox Church? Obviously they all agree with me or they would not bother.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

Excellent explication!

In the history of Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Church relations, the Russians would sometimes rebaptize Ukrainian Orthodox if the latter were baptized by pouring and not by immersion.

Would what you say apply to this situation as well?

There is also evidence to SUGGEST that the Orthodox Church did weigh the beliefs and nature of the baptism of converts before deciding what to do in individual cases.

Nestorians coming to Orthodoxy, for example, especially in southeast Russia during the eighteenth century, were simply asked to make the Orthodox confession and were then chrismated. Christians of other confessions who converted to Orthodoxy were treated in different ways.

How would you explain these differences?

CatholicismorDeath - Alex

OoD --

My position is the same as that adopted by the North American Catholic-Orthodox Theological Consultation's paper on baptism and reception of converts. While it is true that after the Melkite Schism of 1724, the Greek Church in particular adopted a more rigid approach toward Roman Catholics (and this is the source of what you have quoted here), this was not the general practice before then, and even since then has not been normative throughout the Orthodox world.

In addition, as that paper points out, it is quite clear that the Orthodox service of reception of converts, and the anointing with chrism, is not tantamount to an "initiation chrismation" -- the prayers are completely different. It is a "reconciliation chrismation", using the same prayers as are used when an Orthodox apostate, for example, is received back into the Orthodox Church -- he isn't "reinitiated", but he is reconciled to the Church.

Brendan

Oorthodox Catholic,

Thank you, but nothing I wrote was my own.

>"In the history of Ukrainian and Russian >Orthodox Church relations, the Russians would >sometimes rebaptize Ukrainian Orthodox if the >latter were baptized by pouring and not by >immersion."

>Would what you say apply to this situation as >well?"

There are so many situations to consider and I cetainly don't have the answer for everything but would say that in this case it seems the Russians considered the reception by the Ukrainians by Chrismation wrong probably because the Latin form is worng. So in this case they felt "exactness" should be excercised.


>"There is also evidence to SUGGEST that the >Orthodox Church did weigh the beliefs and nature >of the baptism of converts before deciding what >to do in individual cases.

>Nestorians coming to Orthodoxy, for example, >especially in southeast Russia during the >eighteenth century, were simply asked to make >the Orthodox confession and were then >chrismated. Christians of other confessions who >converted to Orthodoxy were treated in different >ways.

>How would you explain these differences?"

Again, if the proper form of the original "baptism" was correct then "economy" can be excercised. In the case of Nestorians, I would guess they baptise properly although they are still heretics.

What I find amazing is that this practice that I describe was universal both East and West and the example of the Donatists is just another case to prove it. They had the proper form and were very "orthodox-like" so they were only Chrismated by reason of economy, but it is documented very completely that their "baptism" was not a real baptism to the applauds of the whole Church.