Newest Members
AXO, Freder1ck, Nikolay, ThomasT, TheLeastofThese
5035 Registered Users
Who's Online
14 registered (Three Cents, byzanTN, Constantine Cesak, Ivanov325, Ray S., LightSpectra, babochka, theophan, Kolbe, JLF, Fr. Dn. Nicholas, 3 invisible), 73 Guests and 24 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Audience with Patriarch Bartholomew
Audience with Pope Francis
Compostela
Agia Sophia
"IconoFan 2" at St. Thekla Monastery Chapel
Forum Stats
5035 Members
26 Forums
33183 Topics
402181 Posts

Max Online: 2716 @ 06/07/12 04:10 PM
Page 11 of 12 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 >
Topic Options
#307359 - 12/17/08 05:09 AM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose]
ajk Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 1658
Loc: MD
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted By: ajk
I can not see the insistence on the triple immersion. I think it is a very powerful sign as a ritual element, but as I recall early practices do not require it

Dear Father Deacon,

Here are some things from an old Irishman....

Triple immersion and full immersion was considered essential in the Church of the British Isles and this emphasis was maintained up to the 17th c.

1. St. Theodore, 7th c. Archbishop of Canterbury, has in his Penitential:...
2. A Canon of the Council of Calchuth (or Cloveshoo or Chalkheath, take your pick) in the year 816, says:...
3. Gerald of Wales, in his early 12th c. "Jewel of the Church," says:...

Does anybody have information about the practice on the Continent? When did the Church of the West cease baptizing by triple immersion? Could this not be revalourized?

Legitimate local custom is always to have a place of honor. Demands of certain practices as necessary, however, must defer to well documented legitimate practices of greater antiquity:

The Didache(7). ca. AD 100
Quote:
Concerning Baptism
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. 3 But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4 And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.
-- from The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edition, edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes after the earlier work of J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, Baker Academic (2007), 355.

Also from ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY, 41, 77 (1997)
BOOK REVIEW of GEORGE D. METALLINOS, I Confess One Baptism...: Interpretation and Application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos. This excerpt from John (now Fr. John) Erickson's review:


Quote:
While in some places and in certain circumstances total immersion very likely was practiced, all the evidence (and there is much more!) points to baptism in most cases by partial immersion or affusion (dunking of the head or pouring water over the head, typically when the baptizand was standing in the baptismal pool). Here the words of St. John Chrysostom might be noted: "It is as in a tomb that we immerse our heads in the water... then when we lift our heads back the new man comes forth" (On John 25.2, PG 59:151).


Here is the context of the excerpt. Based on historical and archeological evidence, Erikson here is quite critical of Metallinos and the need to rebaptize Latins:

Quote:
Several arguments, not always clearly distinguished, as to why Latins should be rebaptized are advanced in the sources cited so approvingly by Fr. Metallinos:


1. Latin "baptism " is formally defective. In fact it is no baptism at all, because by definition baptism must be performed by threefold submersion (total immersion). But as abundant archeological and other evidence indicates, the Church has not insisted, always and everywhere, that baptism be performed by submersion (total immersion). The oldest known baptismal vessel, at Dura-Europos, is a raised container 1.63 meters long, roughly 1.00 meter wide, and .95 meter high, installed in a niche (thus C.H. Kraeling, "The Christian Building," in The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report VIII, Part II, ed. C. Bradford Welles (New Haven CT, 1967) 26-27. It very appropriately has the shape of a sarcophagus (baptism as death and burial), but its dimensions and positioning would have made total immersion difficult to accomplish. Of the dozen or more early Christian (3rd and 4th century) baptistries excavated in Greece, only two have fonts (typically sunken or raised pools) of a meter or more in depth, and most are under 50 centimeters (i.e., knee-deep if filled to the very top). Evidence from Palestine, Syria, Egypt and North Africa tells much the same story. Fonts are generally very shallow. That of the famous Eleona church in Palestine is only 24 centimeters deep. Very few are more than a meter deep, and in most cases the other dimensions or positioning of these would have made total immersion as envisioned by Fr. Metallinos very difficult if not impossible. While in some places and in certain circumstances total immersion very likely was practiced, all the evidence (and there is much more!) points to baptism in most cases by partial immersion or affusion (dunking of the head or pouring water over the head, typically when the baptizand was standing in the baptismal pool). Here the words of St. John Chrysostom might be noted: "It is as in a tomb that we immerse our heads in the water... then when we lift our heads back the new man comes forth" (On John 25.2, PG 59:151). In a word, while early Christians were very attentive to symbolism relating to baptism (cf. the funerary shape of the baptistry building; the steps, typically three, for descending and rising from the font; the iconography relating to regeneration, etc.), they show few signs of preoccupation with total immersion. (For bibliographical details and further evidence see J.G. Davies, The Architectural Setting of Baptism [Barrie and Rockliff: London, 1962] 18-26, and S. Anita Stauffer, On Baptismal Fonts: Ancient and Modern [Alcuin Club and Group for Renewal of Worship, Grove Books Limited: Bramcote, Nottingham, 1994].)



Top
#307361 - 12/17/08 05:35 AM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: ajk]
AMM Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 3393
Loc: Etc
Fr. Deacon, as noted in this article

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

There has historically been variance on both sides. Obviously the situation is different now, but it's worth noting.

Top
#307364 - 12/17/08 06:49 AM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: AMM]
ajk Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 1658
Loc: MD
Originally Posted By: AMM
Fr. Deacon, as noted in this article

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

There has historically been variance on both sides. Obviously the situation is different now, but it's worth noting.


Thanks. This is a very fine document containing many interesting points of discussion. Concerning the consistency of Catholic practices and regrettable departures from its proper norm it notes:
Quote:
From the fifth-century writings of St. Augustine on the Donatist Schism, the Latin tradition has been able to draw on a clearly articulated rationale for recognizing the validity, though not necessarily the fruitfulness, of trinitarian baptism outside the bounds of the visible church. This does not mean, however, that the rebaptism of Orthodox has never occurred in the Catholic Church; it appears, in fact, to have occurred rather frequently in the Middle Ages. Pope Alexander VI affirmed the validity of Orthodox baptism just after the turn of the sixteenth century, and Rome has periodically confirmed this ruling since then.

I would trace the Catholic norm back to at least the Pope Stephen - St. Cyprian controversy, ca. AD 254. In the middle ages, Lateran Council IV (portions of Canons 1 and 4) of AD 1215 indirectly affirms the same by blasting "the Greeks" for doing otherwise :
Quote:
But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation. And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored… Also, those baptized by the Latins the Greeks rashly presume to rebaptize, and even till now, as we understand, there are some who do not hesitate to do this.

The Canons on Baptism from the Council of Trent (1547), Canons 4 and 11, are representative of the once-only practice of the Catholic Church:
Quote:

Can. 4. If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.
Can. 11. If anyone says that baptism, truly and rightly administered, must be repeated in the one converted to repentance after having denied the faith of Christ among the infidels, let him be anathema.

Top
#307366 - 12/17/08 08:44 AM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: ajk]
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member

Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 1520
Loc: New Zealand
Originally Posted By: ajk
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose
Throughout the Orthodox world there is a variety of practices...


This gives new meaning to "God bless America." For a grace filled Catholic baptism by Orthodox standards, come to America..
Fr Deacon,

Think economia!

Every Orthodox Church in America may, if it chooses, baptize. They can, they do.

Top
#307367 - 12/17/08 08:55 AM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: ajk]
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member

Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 1520
Loc: New Zealand
Originally Posted By: ajk
The Didache(7). ca. AD 100

Quote:
Concerning Baptism
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. 3 But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4 And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.


Yes, the Didache and its contents are thoroughly orthodox and accepted as such by both our Churches.

HOWEVER, the world did not even have a single copy of the Didache until the year 1883.

In 1873 Metropolitan Philotheos Briennios of Nicomedia discovered a manuscript.

While he was head of the Patriarchal School in Constantinople, he discovered a manuscript in the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre. It contained

a synopsis of the Old and New Testaments arranged by St. Chrysostom

the Epistle of Barnabas

the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache)

the spurious letter of Mary of Cassoboli

twelve pseudo-Ignatian Epistles.


The letters were published in 1875, and the Didache in 1883.

Top
#307369 - 12/17/08 09:15 AM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: ajk]
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member

Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 1520
Loc: New Zealand
Originally Posted By: ajk
Legitimate local custom is always to have a place of honor. Demands of certain practices as necessary, however, must defer to well documented legitimate practices of greater antiquity


Leavened bread all round? grin

Top
#307370 - 12/17/08 09:35 AM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: ajk]
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member

Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 1520
Loc: New Zealand
Originally Posted By: ajk
Originally Posted By: AMM
Fr. Deacon, as noted in this article

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

There has historically been variance on both sides. Obviously the situation is different now, but it's worth noting.


Thanks. This is a very fine document containing many interesting points of discussion.

I made reference to this American document earlier in our discussions, on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Its recommendations have not been received by the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/306858/Re:%20specific%20Orthodox%20disagree#Post306858

Top
#307377 - 12/17/08 12:19 PM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose]
ajk Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 1658
Loc: MD
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose

Yes, the Didache and its contents are thoroughly orthodox and accepted as such by both our Churches.

HOWEVER, the world did not even have a single copy of the Didache until the year 1883.

In 1873 Metropolitan Philotheos Briennios of Nicomedia discovered a manuscript...
Yes, of course. HOWEVER, as found it serves as confirmation (for those with questionable opinions) of what must be proper, Holy Tradition.

Top
#307378 - 12/17/08 12:27 PM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose]
ajk Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 1658
Loc: MD
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted By: ajk
Legitimate local custom is always to have a place of honor. Demands of certain practices as necessary, however, must defer to well documented legitimate practices of greater antiquity


Leavened bread all round? grin


Cute, but a topic best avoided; no need to rehash yet again what kind of bread was used at the Last Supper.

Top
#307379 - 12/17/08 12:35 PM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose]
ajk Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 1658
Loc: MD
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted By: ajk
Originally Posted By: AMM
Fr. Deacon, as noted in this article

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

There has historically been variance on both sides. Obviously the situation is different now, but it's worth noting.


Thanks. This is a very fine document containing many interesting points of discussion.

I made reference to this American document earlier in our discussions, on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Its recommendations have not been received by the Orthodox Churches.

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/306858/Re:%20specific%20Orthodox%20disagree#Post306858

Yes, you did. In your post and here, however, the referenced link is to the SCOBA website (not the USCCB) where the document resides.

Top
#307381 - 12/17/08 12:37 PM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: ajk]
Secret Squirrel Offline
Byzantine Secret Service
Member

Registered: 06/03/07
Posts: 254
Loc: The Oak Tree
Originally Posted By: ajk
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted By: ajk
Legitimate local custom is always to have a place of honor. Demands of certain practices as necessary, however, must defer to well documented legitimate practices of greater antiquity


Leavened bread all round? grin


Cute, but a topic best avoided; no need to rehashed yet again what kind of bread was used at the Last Supper.

I thought it was a loaf of seedless Jewish rye bread myself. wink


Top
#307383 - 12/17/08 12:48 PM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: Hieromonk Ambrose]
ajk Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 1658
Loc: MD
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose
Think economia!

Every Orthodox Church in America may, if it chooses, baptize. They can, they do.
Yes, "if it chooses." The Catholic Church is constrained here, having no choice: It must baptize the unbaptized, and not baptize the baptized.



Top
#307384 - 12/17/08 01:05 PM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: Irish Melkite]
ajk Offline
Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 1658
Loc: MD
Originally Posted By: Irish Melkite


Deacon Anthony,

My final thoughts on the matters you raise above. I have neither intention, desire, nor need to retract or modify what I've written, nor am I in the least concerned regarding its further dissemination or attribution to me. It's not my habit to take fingers to keyboard lightly, a self-discipline that helps me avoid eating crow, a taste that I've never developed ...

Many years,

Neil
What an odd thing to write. I have never in any of my posts said that you have eaten crow. As to your noting the taste, you must tell me sometime what it is like.

Top
#307386 - 12/17/08 02:36 PM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: ajk]
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member

Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 1520
Loc: New Zealand
Originally Posted By: ajk
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose
Originally Posted By: ajk
Legitimate local custom is always to have a place of honor. Demands of certain practices as necessary, however, must defer to well documented legitimate practices of greater antiquity


Leavened bread all round? grin


Cute, but a topic best avoided; no need to rehash yet again what kind of bread was used at the Last Supper.

Have we already done leavened bread? confused

But you see the point? That if your proposition is axiomatic and we must defer to the practices of greater antiquity (which in most cases we should), then the Church of Rome has to retire those wafers and start baking leavened bread again.

Top
#307387 - 12/17/08 02:37 PM Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism [Re: ajk]
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member

Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 1520
Loc: New Zealand
Originally Posted By: ajk
Originally Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose
Think economia!

Every Orthodox Church in America may, if it chooses, baptize. They can, they do.
Yes, "if it chooses." The Catholic Church is constrained here, having no choice: It must baptize the unbaptized, and not baptize the baptized.

Same with the Easterners. It is a great sin to baptize someone already baptized. It is actually a defrocking offence for a priest.

Top
Page 11 of 12 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 >


The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. Contents copyright - 1996-2014. All rights reserved.