www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox-Catholic ecclesiology and reunion

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.