"Professor Wróblewski then spoke of his desire to be incorporated in the Church in the manner defined by the sacred Canons - that is, the Apostolic ones, especially the 46th, also those of the Ecumenical Councils, as well as the canonical epistles of Saint Basil the Great. In Poland, on account of the prevalence of the ecclesiology of Ecumenism and the (altered, as he wrote) "baptismal theology", it was not possible for him to be accepted through baptism, inasmuch as the incorporation through Chrismation is becoming more and more scarce there, and incorporation into Orthodoxy is being replaced from the year 2000 onwards, by Confession and Holy Communion alone".
DOCUMENTS OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE) A.D. 381 translated by Henry R. Percival, 1899. Canon VII Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies -- for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians: -- all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.
CANONS OF THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL Translated by Henry R. Percival and John Fulton. Canon XIX Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.
When St. Alexis Toth took his congregation in Minneapolis to Orthodoxy under the Church of Russia and a fair number of other Greek Catholic congregations followed suit (including my mother in law's family and some of my mother's family) and when Bishop Orestes Chornock, of thrice blessed memory, took his followers to Orthodoxy (including all of my grandparents and the rest of my immediate family and my wife's dad's family) under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, neither Moscow nor Constantinople required rebaptism or any other readministration of Holy Orders.
I have heard that some Athonite communities do not recognize these actions, but I was unaware that this practice is widespread outside of Athos. It is certainly contrary to the agreed upon statements of the Ecumenical Dialogues between some of the Orthodox and Rome. (Yes, it does point out the inability of us Orthodox to agree upon many details while we claim a unity of faith.....so please don't point out the need for a centralized authority...heard that one before over the years.....)
(As an aside, a dear friend of our family was the late Rev. Hilarion Wroblewski, an Orthodox priest of the Ukrainian Diocese under Bishop Bohdan. He was pastor of a small parish in Freeland, PA for many years and was a most remarkable, well educated and lovely man.He was well known as a banquet speaker and humorist at numerous church functions in northeast Pennsylvania through the 1970.s Eternal Memory. )
After contacting the Orthodox Bishop Vladimir who was residing in San Francisco, Father Toth traveled there and was received into the Orthodox Faith by the bishop. An eyewitness of this event, the parish choir director Paul Zaichenko wrote:
In the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of San Francisco, Bishop Vladimir is serving the Divine Liturgy. The choir, under my direction, is singing splendidly. In the center of the church stands a stranger. He is clean shaven, with a short military haircut. He wears a cassock, fastened with a row of buttons, and around his waist is tied a wide purple sash...All eyes are on him, but no one knows who the stranger is. Bishop Vladimir, in all his vestments, comes forward from the altar, holding the Bible and the cross. According to the Church ritual, the stranger is accepted into the Orthodox faith. In a loud voice, he renounces papism and enters the fold of the Holy Orthodox Church. At that moment his face lights up with an internal light. This new convert was Father Alexis Toth, young, handsome, and energetic...
That was my point, I know that history. The belief by some Orthodox that Catholic baptism is ineffective is troublesome to me on a personal level for a variety of reasons.
Rose's opposition to Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement, and his advocacy of the contentious "toll house teaching" led him into conflict with some notable figures in 20th-century Orthodoxy, and he remains controversial in some quarters even after his sudden death from an undiagnosed intestinal disorder in 1982.
Baptized in the Methodist Church when he was 14 years old, Rose later rejected Christianity for atheism.
In 1962, Rose was received into the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in San Francisco.
In his ministry, Rose spoke frequently of an "Orthodoxy of the Heart," which he saw as increasingly absent in American ecclesiastical life. He also spoke of the need for warmth and kindness of the spirit, especially when dealing with those with whom one disagreed, an increasing problem in American Orthodoxy and its conflict between so-called "traditionalists" and "modernists."
Although some Orthodox Christians asserted that the so-called "red" church had forfeited legitimacy by cooperating with the communist government, Rose disagreed. While wholeheartedly disapproving of the close relations between the Moscow church and the country's communist masters, Rose insisted that it was still legitimate and possessed of valid sacraments.
A cause for Fr. Seraphim's canonization was begun soon after his burial. He currently awaits canonization into sainthood by an Orthodox synod, and his grave at St. Herman's monastery has become a popular site for pilgrimages.
The St. Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina is now a part of the Western America diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
The following is a letter which was written by Fr. Seraphim Rose to Fr. Alexey Young—now Hieromonk Ambrose. It was on the problem of certain people not accepting converts who were received into the Orthodox Church through either chrismation or confession, but insisted that all must be re-baptized.
Jan. 28/Feb.10, 1976 An example: she is horrified that T was received into the Church [from Roman Catholicism] without baptism or chrismation. “That’s wrong,” she says. But we see nothing particularly wrong with it; that is for the priest and the bishop to decide, and it is not our (or even more, her) business. The rite by which he was received has longed been approved by the church out of economy, and probably in this case it was the best way, because T might have hesitated much more at being baptized. The Church’s condescension here was wise. But L would like someone “to read Vladika Anthony the decree of the Sobor” [on this subject]. My dear, he was there, composing the decree, which explicitly gives the bishop permission to use economy when he wishes! We don’t like this attitude at all, because it introduces totally unnecessary disturbance into the church atmosphere. And if she is going to tell T now that he is not “really” a member of the Orthodox Church, she can do untold harm to a soul.
L was very pleased that Q was baptized [after having been a member of the Russian Church Abroad already for several years]: Finally he did it “right”! But we are not pleased at all, seeing in this a sign of great spiritual immaturity on his part and a narrow fanaticism on the part of those who approve. Saint Basil the Great refused to baptize a man who doubted the validity of his baptism, precisely because he had already received communion for many years and it was too late to doubt then that he was a member of Christ’s Church! In the case of our converts, it’s obvious that those who insist or are talked into receiving baptism after already being a member of the Church are trying, out of a feeling of insecurity, to receive something which the Sacrament does not give: psychological security, a making up for their past failures while already Orthodox, a belonging to the “club” of those who are “right,” an automatic spiritual “correctness.” But this act casts doubt on the Church and her ministers. If the priest or bishop who receives such people were wrong (and so wrong that the whole act of reception must be done over again!), a sort of Church within the Church is created, a clique which, by contrast to “most bishops and priests,” is always “right.” And of course, that is our big problem today—and even more in the days ahead. It is very difficult to fight this, because they offer “clear and simple” answers to every question, and our insecure converts find this the answer to their needs.
At times we would like to think that the whole “Fr. Panteleimon problem” in our Church is just a matter of differing emphasis which, in the end, will not be so terribly important. But the more we observe, the more we come to think that it is much more serious than that, that in fact that an “orthodox sectarianism” is being formed at that expense of our simple people. Therefore, those who are aware of all this must be “zealots according to knowledge.” The Church has survived worse temptations in the past, but we fear for our converts lest in their simplicity they be led into a sect and out of the Church.
"On Sunday, February 12/25th, 1962, the commemoration day of his patron St. Eugene of Alexandria, Eugene was received into the Church. The service was performed by an archpriest of the Russian Church Abroad, Fr. Nicholas Dombrovsky, in the San Francisco "Joy of All Who Sorrow" Cathedral. Fr. Nicholas had been instructed by Archbishop Tikhon to receive Eugene through the Sacrament of Christmation."
I am familiar with the debate, and as you correctly state, Fr. Rose's cause remains controversial within many quarters of the Orthodox Church although he is generally a respected figure, not all believe in his glorification.
However, again I ask - do you have a question? No doubt there is a variety of opinion within some Orthodox quarters on the issues of baptismal validity of the non-Orthodox - the best answer is - 'It depends."
From my point of view the problem here is not the variety of opinions among our Orthodox brethern about the validity of the sacraments celebrated by non Orthodox priests or bishops, the point is How can an Orthodox bishop administer the sacraments of baptism and chrismation to 1) a convert from the Catholic Church or from some protestant community baptised in water in the name of the Most Holy Trinity or, even worse, 2) to someone who has been already chrismated by and Orthodox priest or bishop and has already received the sacraments of salvation administered by Orthodox clergy and, at the same time, to be, directly or undirectly, in full communion 3) with other bishops who do not do the same (1, 2) or, even worse, (4) were never baptised by an Orthodox priest or bishop (we have some of them among the current members of the synod of the Orthodox Church in America), and (5) with Churches that venerate as saints of the Chrurch Christians that were never baptised by an Orthodox priest or bishop? Can an Orthodox bishop who remains in full communion with other bishops who, from his own point of view, are not Orthodox any more because what they teach is not what the Church teaches or because they are clearly violating the canons of the Orthodox Church be considered Orthodox? Coherence is the pint here.
^^ I, and many other Orthodox have a real problem with such teachings for both theological and personal reasons.
If you think that the Catholic church is like the hypothetical "herd of cats" with a Pope at the top playing the shepherd's tole, sometimes we Orthodox, while appearing superficially coherent liturgically, often appear to be more like herds of cats who occasionaly eat their shepherds.
A good summary of the issue from the point of view of the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation...with a lot of place for "Greek-speaking Orthodoxy" (3 times) positions about the issue and very litle for those of the "East Slavic Orthodox churches" (2 times) with two very interesting recomendations (adressed, if I am not wrong, basically, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and "Greek-speaking Orthodoxy").
1484 Synod of Constantinople
1755 Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the reception of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism.
1800 Nicodemus and the Pedalion
1667
It is this provision of Constantinople in 1484, together with Canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, which the Council of Moscow in 1667 invokes in its decree forbidding the rebaptism of Catholics, a decree that has remained authoritative in the East Slavic Orthodox churches to the present day.
Recommendation
3. That the Patriarchate of Constantinople formally withdraw its decree on rebaptism of 1755;
4. That the Orthodox churches declare that the Orthodox reception of Catholics by chrismation does not constitute a repetition of any part of their sacramental initiation;
In your posts You point out the variety of opinions you can find within the Orthodox Church on the issues of baptismal validity of the non-Orthodox and in my posts I point out the inconsistency (incoherence), both from dogmatic and disciplinary point of view, and triviality in some cases, of those who deny the validity of the sacraments celebrated by non Orthodox.
In this same forum, there is a thread mentioning that there is the continuing practice of "confirmation" by Latin Catholic bishops of Eastern Catholics who were already chrismated as infants.
So, the inconsistency regarding the use of the "Sacraments of Initiation" is not an Orthodox problem alone.
The practice of baptizing ORTHODOX who were or are converting to Catholicism is also not unknown. When thousands of Serbs were (forcibly) converted to Catholicism by the Ustashe during WWII they were received by baptism.
You can also be assured, Francisco, that the Orthodox are perfectly aware of the differences in attitude towards Catholic baptisms among their jurisdictions. However, no Orthodox jurisdiction would see these differences as constituting a disagreement on the level of dogma.
In your posts You point out the variety of opinions you can find within the Orthodox Church on the issues of baptismal validity of the non-Orthodox and in my posts I point out the inconsistency (incoherence), both from dogmatic and disciplinary point of view, and triviality in some cases, of those who deny the validity of the sacraments celebrated by non Orthodox.
It would seem that in the period of 1935-1945 at least, the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not require the re-baptism of validly baptized Greek Catholics or the re-ordination of their priests. A simple reception into Orthodoxy as in the case of St. Alexis was sufficient. My parents and their entire immediate families were baptized, practicing Greek Catholics and they were, as my late father noted on many occasions, Greek Catholics commemorating Pope Pius XII one Sunday and Orthodox Christians commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch the next. Had re-baptism and re-ordination been a condition of episcopal elevation for Father Orestes Chornock in 1938, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he would not have so submitted and most likely his movement would have partly gravitated to the Metropolia or submitted to the authority of Bishop Takach. So, to paraphrase Emerson, a certain consistency must indeed haunt small minds as the minds of the Bishops of Constantinople's synod have been open to a degree of rapprochement with the Roman Church for the better part of the past sixty years at least notwithstanding the steadfast objections of some of the more, shall we way for lack of a more polite term, 'stalwart' factions on Athos.
The metrical books of St. Michael's in Binghamton reflect the change from Greek Catholic to Orthodox administration quite clearly. As of June 1, 1939 the pastor was Orthodox, Father Joseph Mihaly and assigned by Bishop Chornock. The inscription following the departure of the last Greek Catholic pastor, Fr. Starouvsky, makes that quite clear. Yet, among the faithful, they really had no clue regarding the significance of that change.
Basically, as was the case in much of Eastern Europe, a sign went up saying "Under New Management", but the establishment and its product remained unchanged.
Basically, as was the case in much of Eastern Europe, a sign went up saying "Under New Management", but the establishment and its product remained unchanged.
The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably the Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.
Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place. And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter. It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since the topic is not on the agenda for the upcoming Council I think we may assume the existing status quo and the various practices will continue. The diversity does not disturb the unity of the Local Churches.
"Thus, the baptism of the Westerners, was sometimes regarded as valid, because it was done in the name of the Holy Trinity and was referred to the proper baptism, and sometimes as invalid, because of the many irregularities of form with which it was clothed with the passage of time by the constantly increasing vain study of the Western Church. Hence, the Most Holy Russian Church, taking its lead from obvious reasons makes use of the Decisions of the newer Synod of Moscow under Patriarch Ioasaph of Moscow, discerning that they are contributive to the benefit of the Church in that place, whereas the Churches in the East consider it necessary for the benefit of Orthodoxy to follow the Horos which had been issued under Cyril V.
"Since these things happen to be such, it is left to the spiritual discernment of Your Excellency and of the rest of the Synodical members to accept or reject the use of economy which another Church has upheld for more than two centuries without wavering, if, as she writes, this economy implies many benefits to the Church there and secures her from encroaching dangers.
"Whenever, then, the local orthodox Churches might be able to gather together, then, with God’s help, the desired agreement on this subject will take place, as with others as well."
4. That the Orthodox churches declare that the Orthodox reception of Catholics by chrismation does not constitute a repetition of any part of their sacramental initiation;
This caused a bit of hilarity around the Orthodox world and humorous articles appeared "When is a Chrismation not a Chrismation?" :-)
The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably the Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.
Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place. And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter. It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since the topic is not on the agenda for the upcoming Council I think we may assume the existing status quo and the various practices will continue. The diversity does not disturb the unity of the Local Churches.
But it does cause confusion and consternation, particularly along the fault line where Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts coexist. I guess that's where I'm.coming from, figuratively and literally.
But it does cause confusion and consternation, particularly along the fault line where Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts coexist. I guess that's where I'm.coming from, figuratively and literally.
I don't see any reason for "confusion and consternation along the fault line where Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts coexist." In these countries (Russia, Ukraine etc.) I think it would be safe to say the universal Orthodox practice is *not* to baptize.
But it does cause confusion and consternation, particularly along the fault line where Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts coexist. I guess that's where I'm.coming from, figuratively and literally.
I don't see any reason for "confusion and consternation along the fault line where Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts coexist." In these countries (Russia, Ukraine etc.) I think it would be safe to say the universal Orthodox practice is *not* to baptize.
It becomes a problem when certain monastic communities on Athos and elsewhere refuse to recognize such receptions of former Eastern and Roman Catholics and this, albeit limited issue, is used to spread dissension and confusion by the enemies of the church. I agree for most, it's not an issue, but it was raised in the OP. Also here in the states, where Slavic practice has not been to rebaptize but when the convert, usually with spouse, move and run into a hyperdoxing priest, trouble breaks out.
Also here in the states, where Slavic practice has not been to rebaptize but when the convert, usually with spouse, move and run into a hyperdoxing priest, trouble breaks out..
Quite a few years ago the bishops of SCOBA issued a proclamation stopping the baptism of Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.
Since the union with Moscow in 2007, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is rapidly abandoning its practice (commenced in 1972) of baptizing all converts and is returning to traditional Russian practices in this area.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/14/1305:27 AM.
If anyone is interested in the facts about what the current practice is in the Russian Orthodox Church regarding reception of converts, I would direct them to the Official Page of the Missionary Department of the Diocese of Moscow (being the Patriarch's Diocese, this is unquestionably normative for the entire Russian Orthodox Church
The original is, of course, in Russian. It contains a very brief theological and historical justification for the practices of the Russian Church, and includes a handy chart which shows which denominations are to be received in which way.
For those who do not read Russian, here is a synopsis
Roman Catholic Church
a. If confirmed, through repentance, 3rd rite b. If not confirmed,through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Armenian Apostolic Church,through repentance, 3rd rite
Old Believers
a. Belokrinitskaya, through repentance, 3rd rite b. Priestless, through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Anglicanism, through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Lutheranism, through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Presbyterian , through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Evangelical Christian Baptists,through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Various dissident communities (assuming that the person received the sacrament of baptism there), through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Jehovah’s Witnesses,through Baptism, 1st rite
Judaism, through Baptism,1st rite
Islam,through Baptism, 1st rite
Pagans, through Baptism, 1st rite
(Then follows a description of how each of these Rites is performed, according to the Supplementary Book of Needs (Trebnik) of the Russian Orthodox Church.) _____________________ Hierom.Ambrose
Also here in the states, where Slavic practice has not been to rebaptize but when the convert, usually with spouse, move and run into a hyperdoxing priest, trouble breaks out..
Quite a few years ago the bishops of SCOBA issued a proclamation stopping the baptism of Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.
Since the union with Moscow in 2007, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is rapidly abandoning its practice (commenced in 1972) of baptizing all converts and is returning to traditional Russian practices in this area.
I know, but the problem lies with clergy, who being American, often "do their own thing," to the consternation of their Bishops ( I know as I recall listening to the late Metropolitan Nicholas complain in at length to my father about that problem over the years, and he was not alone in that regard.)
So perhaps it's more an issue of clerical discipline, but still a problem.
(Glad to hear from.you, one of your old haunts is engaged in an ongoing debate about its rules. Since you and several others left, things are "different" there. Regards and Many Years on this, the Feast of Pokrov!)
For those who do not read Russian, here is a synopsis
Roman Catholic Church
a. If confirmed, through repentance, 3rd rite b. If not confirmed,through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Armenian Apostolic Church,through repentance, 3rd rite
Old Believers
a. Belokrinitskaya, through repentance, 3rd rite b. Priestless, through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Anglicanism, through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Lutheranism, through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Presbyterian , through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Evangelical Christian Baptists,through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Various dissident communities (assuming that the person received the sacrament of baptism there), through Chrismation, 2nd rite
Jehovah’s Witnesses,through Baptism, 1st rite
Judaism, through Baptism,1st rite
Islam,through Baptism, 1st rite
Pagans, through Baptism, 1st rite
(Then follows a description of how each of these Rites is performed, according to the Supplementary Book of Needs (Trebnik) of the Russian Orthodox Church.) _____________________ Hierom.Ambrose
That is how my father and brother handled such matters as ACROD clergy in the USA. Thanks for the translation.
"This caused a bit of hilarity around the Orthodox world and humorous articles appeared "When is a Chrismation not a Chrismation?"
It is clear for me, Chrismation is not Chrismation when you are the Russian Tsar and you have previously received the sacraments of Baptism and Chrism (Χρίσμα in Greek, Chresima in Italian) or Myron (Sfânta Taină a Mirului in Rumanian) or the Anoitment with Holy Myron (Миропомазание in Russian):
The Emperor now set aside his crown and the Orthodox Divine Liturgy immediately followed. The anointing portion of the ceremony took place during the liturgy, immediately prior to Communion. After the singing of the Communion hymn, the Tsar gave his sword to an attendant and he and the Tsaritsa ascended the Ambo in front of the Royal Doors of the iconostasis, which were thrown open at that moment. There each was anointed with holy chrism by the Patriarch or Metropolitan. The Tsar was anointed on his forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, breast and both sides of each hand, then he stepped aside to his right and stood in front of the icon of Christ. His consort then stepped forward and was anointed on her forehead only,[25] then she stepped to her left and stood before the icon of the Theotokos. Each anointing was accompanied by the words, "the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit."[36]
If I am not wrong former Jehovah's Witnesses were received back in the Church of Cyprus, where they were once baptised and chrismated, by Chrismation as well.
If I am not wrong former Jehovah's Witnesses were received back in the Church of Cyprus, where they were once baptised and chrismated, by Chrismation as well.
Apostates from Orthodoxy are received back unto the Church by 1. Confession, if the apostasy is not deep and long lasting 2. Chrismation
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/14/1301:12 PM.
By the way in "Greek speaking Orthodoxy" the wedding between and Orthodox Christian and a non Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian, Catholic, Protestant) Christian (baptised in water in the name of the Most Holy Trinity) is perfectly posible (and not only among the members or the Royal families). In the first picture the Catholic prince of Spain Juan Carlos and the Orthodox princess of Greece Sophia getting married. In the second picture, baptism of Juan Carlos by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli. So….
By the way in "Greek speaking Orthodoxy" the wedding between and Orthodox Christian and a non Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian, Catholic, Protestant) Christian (baptised in water in the name of the Most Holy Trinity) is perfectly posible (and not only among the members or the Royal families). In the first picture the Catholic prince of Spain Juan Carlos and the Orthodox princess of Greece Sophia getting married.
Francisco, we allow, even to our farm labourers, the same freedom to marry a non-Orthodox person from the major non-Orthodox Churches.
When Princess Sophia, the daughter of King George of Greece, married the Spanish heir to the throne in the early 1960's, there was a dual wedding service -- first in the Orthodox cathedral, then in the RC church of St. Dionysius a few blocks away in Athens.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/15/1302:33 PM.
About princesses, university professors and farm labourers joining the Church of Greece
Yes…but…if I am not wrong Princess Alice of Battenberg (a former Lutheran) was received in the Orthodox Church (Church of Greece) through chrismation whereas Professor Wróblewski (a former Catholic) was received in the Orthodox Church (Church of Greece) through baptism. Personally I do not know what the Church of Greece would do in the case of farm labourers. Personally I know pretty well the case of a Greek Greek-Catholic (Byzantine) Christian (no, I do not know if he was a farm labourer or not) bridegroom who was asked to be baptised in the Orthodox Church (again) before getting married in the Orthodox Church (the Church of Greece being the Church of the bride) so...
whereas Professor Wróblewski (a former Catholic) was received in the Orthodox Church (Church of Greece) through baptism.
Wroblewski is an interesting case. He refused to be received by either Confession or Chrismation in Poland. Obviously there was some personal compulsion which made him seek Baptism. He did this in disobedience to the Polish bishops, and he travelled across Europe to Greece to a monastery where the monks baptized him. It remains to be seen whether Wroblewski's act of disobedience to his Polish bishops will bring him spiritual weal or woe.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/16/1301:48 AM.
"In January 1949, the princess founded a nursing order of Greek Orthodox nuns, the Christian Sisterhood of Martha and Mary, modelled after the convent that her aunt, the martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth Fyodorovna, had founded in Russia in 1909. She trained on the Greek island of Tinos, established a home for the order in a hamlet north of Athens, and undertook two tours of the United States in 1950 and 1952 in an effort to raise funds. Her mother was baffled by her actions, "What can you say of a nun who smokes and plays canasta?", she said.[46] After her daughter-in-law became Queen of the Commonwealth realms in 1952, Princess Andrew attended the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in June 1953 wearing a two-tone grey dress and wimple in the style of her nun's habit. However, the order eventually failed through a lack of suitable applicants".[47]
"She (Princess Alice of Battenberg) became deeply religious, and on 20 October 1928 entered the Greek Orthodox Church".
"They (Princess Alice of Battenberg and Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark) married in a civil ceremony on 6 October 1903 at Darmstadt. The following day, there were two religious marriage ceremonies; one Lutheran in the Evangelical Castle Church, and one Greek Orthodox in the Russian Chapel on the Mathildenhöhe".
Any Orthodox wishing to be received into Catholicism by Baptism is (or was?) able to do so in Croatia in the 1980s.
Orthodox women wishing to marry Catholics were baptized. I do not know if this has ceased. I left Yugoslavia in the early 1980s and have not kept up with this.
What is the difference between being baptised by some monks and by the local bishop?
The Serbian Orthodox martyrs of Jasenovac concentration camp were re-baptised (in water) and “baptised” (in blood) by criminals such as Miroslav Filipović, initially a Roman Catholic military chaplain of the Franciscan Order ("Fra Satana" or “Fra Sotona”) and later commandant of Jasenovac concentration camp and Stara Gradiška concentration camp, who, was expelled from the priesthood before the war had ended and, according to Ronald Rychlak, was "tried, laicized, and expelled from the Franciscan order before the war even ended” and was later found guilty, sentenced to death and hanged, wearing, according to his will, the robes of the Franciscan Order.
The fact that he was only a priest, and later a suspended priest, and not a bishop makes a difference, it is some kind of release or consolation for those who, unfortunately and unwittingly, are members of the same Church (the Catholic Church) or of the same order (the Franciscan one) or even to the same human race Filipović belonged.
That is the difference, Miroslav Filipović and those with him (chaplains as well, belonging to the same Franciscan Order) were, unfortunately, human beings as we are, members of the Catholic Church, and friars of the Order of Saint Francis, but, fortunately for us, human beings like them, they were first of all criminals. Fortunately Jasenovac prisioners undertood that Miroslav Filipović belonged first of all or only to Satan.
And believe me if I tell you that I am not saying that the Catholic hierarchy (many Croatian bishops and the Apostolic Nuncio to Croatia Marcone) had nothing to do with what happened at Jasenovac concentration camp.
I have lived in Serbia (under Tito's regime.) I fear that what I learned and saw about the wartime persecution is still able to cloud my mind with immense anger and deep pain. So I prefer not to touch on the subject in any substantial way.
World War Two and its aftermath was bathed in more than enough sin to go around for all 'sides.' We need to remember it, but not let it consume us. It is when the memories of evil consume our minds, our hearts and our bodies, that we lose our souls and the Evil One triumphes. Lord, have mercy.
World War Two and its aftermath was bathed in more than enough sin to go around for all 'sides.' We need to remember it, but not let it consume us. It is when the memories of evil consume our minds, our hearts and our bodies, that we lose our souls and the Evil One triumphes. Lord, have mercy.
Just what the holy Patriarch Pavle said when he blessed the memorial at the Jasenovac camp.
I point out the inconsistency (incoherence), both from dogmatic and disciplinary point of view, and triviality in some cases, of those who deny the validity of the sacraments celebrated by non Orthodox.
We see some inconsistencies within Catholicism. The Holy See has denied that Anglicans have any Sacraments (except one, Baptism.) But the Archbishop of Canterbury, although no more than a baptized layman, attends such major Vatican events as Pope John Paul's funeral dressed in vestments as if he were an authentic bishop.
The episcopalian bishop (or priest) in the picture, although no more than a baptized layman, attends such major Orthodox events as the Great Blessing of the Waters dressed in vestments as if he were an authentic bishop (priest). If I am not wrong the bishop in the picture is the Archbishop of America Athinagoras.
Burial (probably of Patriarch Athinagoras) at the Ecumenical Patriarchate (in the picture the Metropolitan of Chalkidon Meliton, of blessed memory, Ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew I, then archimandrite, and the Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey)
Anglican clergy over the last few decades have indeed become an embarrassment with changes in morality and the male priesthood.
However in happier days several Orthodox Churches reached the conclusion that
if a large segment of the Anglicans were able to bring their faith into conformity with the orthodox faith we would be able to enter into communion with that group and the clergy would not require ordination.
But today, as in the past, we ordain individual Anglican clergy. With recent developments in Anglicanism it is now unlikely that a mass reconciliation will ever occur.
But we remain grateful to the Anglicans who, while we were poorly established in Western countries, charitably lent us their churches.
Here is something of interest from the former Metropolitan of Kiev who after the Revolution became primate of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (ROCOR) Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders. By the Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky (President of the Synod of Karlovtsi)
“In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it”.
The Melkite Union of 1724, the activity of Catholic missionaries in the Near East and Transylvania or the churches charitably lent by the Catholics to their Orthodox brethren in Western Countries, although interesting elements if we want to study the history of Orthodox-catholic relationships during the last centuries, are not valid theological or canonical arguments for affirming the validity of the baptism administered by Catholic ministers or for denying it.
Yes, the 1775 Council of Constantinople mandated the baptism of Roman Catholic. It was a local Council 9f Constantinople and never received by the Russian Church. But there was a subsequent Council in 1875 by the Patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople which shows that the Council of 1775 was just one more contribution to the on-going variety of practice in receiving converts.
The 1875 Council acknowledges the diversity of practice among the Orthodox Churches and hopes that one day a Pan-Orthodox Council will formulate a common policy.
The Council of 1775 cannot be seen as the last word on the matter and after all, even Constantinople itself ignores it throughout the whole world.
Russian canons and praxis on receiving converts, even today, stem from the Great Moscow Council of 1666 which adopted the decisions of the Council of the Four Patriarchs of 1484.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/21/1303:08 AM.
"if a large segment of the Anglicans were able to bring their faith into conformity with the orthodox faith we would be able to enter into communion with that group and the clergy would not require ordination. But today, as in the past, we ordain individual Anglican clergy. With recent developments in Anglicanism it is now unlikely that a mass reconciliation will ever occur".
The character of the conversion ("group" or "individual") has nothing to do, from my humble point of view, with the valitidy of the sacraments.
The character of the conversion ("group" or "individual") has nothing to do, from my humble point of view, with the valitidy of the sacraments.
Yes, but we are speaking here of Orthodox (and Byzantine Catholic?) mysteriological theology which differs from Roman Catholic theology and also incorporates the principle of “ekonomia” which I am not sure if Roman Catholics employ.
"Ekonomia" allows a bishop to act for the salvation of an individual and the benefit of the Church by retroactively valorising (infusing with grace) the empty sacramental form of a person converting from a non-Orthodox Church.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/21/1303:21 AM.
The concept of economy is certainly familiar to me but I am not sure at all about the patristic origin (no I am not an expert in patristic theology) of concepts such us “kat´ oikonomian”, “kat´ akrivian”, “with grace”, “without grace”, “schismatic en dynami“, “schismatic en energia”, “empty sacramental form”, “infusing retroactively with grace” .
The Orthodox have a similar puzzled reaction to Roman Catholic concepts of liceity and validity which do not exist in our theology.
You will find Orthodox using the word "validity" in the West since it can make dialogue easier but it doesn't imply the full concept understood by Roman Catholics.
Saint Basil the Great, Canon 1,adopted by the 7th Ecumenical Council....
"But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia that, by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it be accepted."
The character of the conversion ("group" or "individual") has nothing to do, from my humble point of view, with the valitidy of the sacraments.
Yes, but we are speaking here of Orthodox (and Byzantine Catholic?) mysteriological theology which differs from Roman Catholic theology and also incorporates the principle of “ekonomia” which I am not sure if Roman Catholics employ.
"Ekonomia" allows a bishop to act for the salvation of an individual and the benefit of the Church by retroactively valorising (infusing with grace) the empty sacramental form of a person converting from a non-Orthodox Church.
"Let their baptism be accepted" in Saint Basil is an enterely different theological concept from "Let their baptism be considered valid" in Latin theology?
By the way, about the concept of sacramental and its patristic or not origin, in "Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999" you can read that:
3. "Sacramental Economy" according to Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain: Nicodemus was clearly obliged, however, to reckon with the approach of Basil the Great and the ecumenically-ranked Synod in Trullo to baptism "outside" the visible Church, different though it was from that of Cyprian. His attempt to reconcile his sources with each other drew on a very ancient term, oikonomia, used in the New Testament and patristic literature to denote both God's salvific plan and the prudent "management" of the Church's affairs, and employed in later canonical literature as roughly the equivalent of "pastoral discretion" or stewardship. In adapting this term to differentiate between what he understood as the "strict" policy (akriveia) of the ancient Church and the apparently more flexible practice (oikonomia) of the Byzantine era, Nicodemus inadvertently bestowed a new meaning on the term oikonomia. By means of this new understanding, Nicodemus was able to harmonize the earlier, stricter practice of Cyprian with that of Basil and other ancient canonical sources; so he could read the fathers of the 4th century as having exercised "economy" with regard to baptism by Arians in order to facilitate their reentry into the Church, just as the Synod in Trullo had done with respect to the "Severians" and Nestorians, and could interpret the treatment of Latin baptism by Constantinople at the Synod of 1484 and later Orthodox rulings as acts of "economy" designed to shield the Orthodox from the wrath of a more powerful Catholic Europe. In his own day, he argued, the Orthodox were protected by the might of the Turkish Sultan, and so were again free to follow the perennial "exactness" of the Church. Latins were therefore now to be rebaptized.
So, according to the words of the agreement (an agreement with a lot of place for "Greek speaking Orthodoxy" sacramental theology and with a very small place for "Eastern Slavic Churches" sacramental theology), should we accept the Nicomedian (1749 – 1809) concept of “ekonomia” as a basic principle of Eastern (both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic) mysteriological theology without farther discussion?
Obviously Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (Pedalion, Filokalia) is a saint and a very relevant theologian and canonist for the whole Orthodox Church, but is Nicomedian sacramental theology and canonical views accepted by all Orthodox Churches alike?
What about the decisions of the Council of Moscow in 1667? There is no sacramental theology or canonical justification behind them? Who was the "Saint Nicodemus" of that Council?
The Orthodox have a similar puzzled reaction to Roman Catholic concepts of liceity and validity which do not exist in our theology.
You will find Orthodox using the word "validity" in the West since it can make dialogue easier but it doesn't imply the full concept understood by Roman Catholics.
That has been an issue since the days of the councils and the use of Greek or Latin or both, which has led to centuries of arguments about what this or that actually meant.
I don't have an answer to Fransico's questions; its above my pay grade as they say in America, but his inquiry together with Father Ambrose's succinct responses clearly point out that the linguistic gap of the first millenium between east and west in trying to understand 'similar' concepts is as wide as ever in spite of fifty or so years of talk in the ecumenical dialogues.
Perhaps civility is the best we can accomplish, it's far better than bashing each other literally as was done to perfection in much of the early to mid twentieth century.
"Let their baptism be accepted" in Saint Basil is an enterely different theological concept from "Let their baptism be considered valid" in Latin theology?
"Validity" would have been an unknown term to Saint Basil. The Orthodox know of it today,thanks to contact with Western Christians, but don't really employ it.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/21/1308:39 PM.
By the way, about the concept of sacramental and its patristic or not origin, in "Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999" you can read that:
The various agreed statements put out by this particular dialogue are invariably confined to dusty shelves by the ancient Churches. One notices that not one Church has acted on any of the recommendations. I think that the Churches are unwilling to take instruction from the "children of the Diaspora."
Father Ambrose plays semantic games. "Let their baptism be accepted" means nothing less than St. Basil considered those baptisms to be efficacious; i.e., that through it the recipient died with Christ and arose from the waters reborn in Christ, that it indelibly marked him as one of God's people, that it remitted all his sins, and opened for him the potential for eternal life.
Leaving aside all the medieval hylomorphic mumbo-jumbo, when the Latin Church today says a baptism is valid, it means EXACTLY the same thing.
And you'd be hard put to prove that Saint Basil was saying all the things you have attributed to him.
Originally Posted by Stuartk
Leaving aside all the medieval hylomorphic mumbo-jumbo, when the Latin Church today says a baptism is valid, it means EXACTLY the same thing.
Saint Basil is not saying the baptism of heretics is valid. In fact it is clear he believes the opposite. But he is acknowledging a concession (economy) being made by the bishops of Asia to receive heretics into the Church.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/21/1307:00 PM.
Father Ambrose said: “Saint Basil is not saying the baptism of heretics is valid. In fact it is clear he believes the opposite. But he is acknowledging a concession (economy) being made by the bishops of Asia to receive heretics into the Church”. “Valid”, according to father Ambrose, is a Western concept unknown in Eastern sacramental theology, “economy” is, according to the Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, a concept created by Saint Nicodemus (a post-patristic and, probably, patristic in many other respects, modern Greek theologian) of the Holy Mountain different from the New Testament and patristic concept of “economy”. Why should we reject the Western concept of “validity” and admit the Nicodemian concept of “economy”? I am not a theologian, but I imagine that if a theologian assumes Nicodemian concepts and uses Nicodemian methods then he will be directly driven to Nicomedian conclusions (probably the baptisms of converts - former Catholics and Protestants - at the “arsanades” of Holy Mountain monasteries are also result of Saint Nicodemus sacramental theology, where the ideas of Saint Cyprian of Carthage and North African Church Councils have a relevant place, if I am not wrong. There was no Eastern or Orthodox sacramental theology before Saint Nicodemus? There is no Eastern or Orthodox sacramental theology besides Saint Nicodemus?
“economy” is, according to the Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, a concept created by Saint Nicodemus
What can one say but Phooey! Small wonder the Orthodox Churches pay no attention to the Agreed Statements generated by this American group.
One of the Moderators here, Neil Foley, penned a very lucid message on Augustinian vs. Cyprianic sacramental theology. I think it's on this forum and I'll find it for us.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/22/1303:06 AM.
The Orthodox (Cyprianite) and Catholic (Augustinian) Theology of Sacraments outside the Church
Neil Foley _________________________________________________
I apologize if the following is rambling or seen as not completely relevant to the points being debated here, but I perceive the arguments as going in opposing circles and ignoring several basic considerations, on the part of both my Catholic and Orthodox brethren. The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. That is fact and we can discuss, debate, and disagree over whether the other's stance is or is not rational, but it won't change the fact that it is what it is. The resolution of such will only occur, if it ever does and hopefully it ultimately will, in circles more august than this revered forum. This leads me to presumptuously suggest that it is time to move on to other things.
There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church).
If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.
The Augustinian theory................ effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.
The Cyprianic theory...................... effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.
The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory,
(although the Orthodox have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).
Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most perjorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent" Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/22/1303:11 AM.
In the book "I confess one baptism" by a well know anti-ecumenist Greek Orthodox theologian, protopresbyter father George Metallinos (traslation by Priestmonk Seraphim) you can find the "Western" concept of "valitidy" in the expression "the problem of the validity of Western baptism".
In the book the author identifies Orthodox sacramental theology with the "interpretation and application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos".
In this paper "A Critique of a Critique. In Response to Professor John Erickson" you can read "The very fact that Professor Erickson is a former Lutheran renders the issue even more substantial". I do not know if it is so fair to write about an Orthodox theologian if he was Lutheran or not, if he was baptised or not by an orthodox priest...
...That is because of it that I must humble add that people in Greece (obviously I was not a eyewitness of the celebration) told me that Professor Metallinos baptised his own mother, a former Roman Catholic woman from Corfu island in Greece, "something that renders the issue even more substantial".
None of the Orthodox writing here have denied the diversity of practice among our Churches when we receive converts from non-Orthodox Churches. This diversity does not give us any headaches.
In contrast to the reception of Metallinos’ RC mother we can contrast the 2010 reception of the Swiss Benedictine hermit and Patristics scholar Fr Gabriel Bunge. He was received in Moscow before the beginning of an All-Night Vigil by a bishop of the Church of Constantinople Kallistos (Ware) and a bishop of the Church of Russia Hilarion (Alfeyev.) He was received simply by the exchange of the triple kiss of love and the gift of a beautifully bound Book of the Holy Gospels.
In the book "I confess one baptism" by a well know anti-ecumenist Greek Orthodox theologian, protopresbyter father George Metallinos (traslation by Priestmonk Seraphim) you can find the "Western" concept of "valitidy" in the expression "the problem of the validity of Western baptism".
One notices that the phrase you quote is not actually in the book but on the introductory page and probably written by another person. Have you read through the book and found Metallinos using the phrase?
The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory. Really? Apparently some Orthodox Churches (“Greek speaking Orthodoxy”), adhere to the Augustinian theory, whereas other Orthodox Churches (“Eastern Slavic Churches”) to the Cyprianic theory. Is not Saint Augustine a saint and a Church father for our Orthodox brethren? Is not Saint Cyprian of Carthage a saint and a Church father both for the Orthodox and Catholic Churches? Is not pope Saint Stephen I a saint and a Church father for our Orthodox brethren? Were the Holy Fathers of the First and of the Second Ecumenical Council s adherents to the Cyprian theory? Are the canons of the First and, specially, of the Second Ecumenical Councils, inspired in Cyprian sacramental theology? Why to identify Orthodox sacramental theology with that of Saint Cyprian? Is the "interpretation and application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos" more Orthodox that the "interpretation and application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Russian Church”?
Father A. and I have explained the Orthodox divergent points of view.
Even in RCC with its codex and Canon laws, not all bishops and not all regions handle difficult issues marching in uniformity.
What's the point here?
I think the point here is that the Orthodox can upset Roman Catholics because we have no settled theology on the reception of Catholics or other Christians. Instead our bishops work from a mishmash of ancient canons from centuries past - the same canons which we shared with the Roman Catholics until they created their unified Canon Law as late (I think) as 1917. Out of this the bishop will determine a pastoral decision which is pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Our converts can also be puzzled when they first encounter the concept of economy. Why did Fr Ambrose receive the Anglican minister by Chrismation but 5 years later he baptized his wife? It takes a while to settle into the idea. People need to see economy in action in a few instances before they begin to understand. And yes, the inability to create precedents and establish immutable principles can cause irritation at first. But we must not lose sight of what is aimed for – the spiritual well-being of the convert and the need to bring him/her into the saving fold of the Church and not to push him away.
Am I explaining this well? Probably not. But I have seen and addressed the confusion of converts many times.
We are here talking about "the validity of trinitarian baptism outside the bounds of the visible church" from the perspective both of the Catholic and the Orthodox Church (i. e. from a basically theoretical point of view), that is all, we are not talking here about personal and sometimes extremely difficult decisions or about the supposed superiority of one or another communion (Churches in communion with the Church of Rome, Churches in communion with the Church of Constantinople, New Rome) based on the degree of obedience of their members (bishops) or the existence of a common Code of Canon Law or not.
George D. Metallinos, I confess One Baptism, ISBN 978-960-85542-0-7, St. Pauls Monastery, Holy Mountain, Greece, 1994
Title:
I Confess One Baptism ...: Interpretation and Application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos (a Contribution to the Historico-canonical Evaluation of the Problem of the Validity of Western Baptism
I was thinking that if we, momentarily, approach this through the prism of the Western understanding of "validity" of Sacraments we may start from the usual Western understanding that validity requires correct matter, form and intent.
But to that the Orthodox would add a fourth element - correct minister. This is a sine qua non for Orthodoxy and the absence of a correct minister renders attempted sacramental actions void of grace.
the usual Western understanding that validity requires correct matter, form and intent.
That's why I indicated that one should ignore all the hylomorphic tripe and focus on the word validity as indicative of efficacy. And, yes, St. Basil recognized the efficacy of heterodox baptisms. Consider the sacramental implications if he did not.
He certainly did not recognise the efficacy of heterodox baptism.
De facto, he did. If, in accepting the baptism of the heterodox, Basil did not believe such baptisms were efficacious, then he received into the Church those whose initiation was not yet complete, and, in theory, could never be completed. The Holy Eucharist would thus be given to those who had not yet received enlightenment, which would certainly cast doubt upon its transformational capacity.
Basil's seemingly contradictory statements are easily reconciled.
First, it is true that those who have departed from the Church no longer have power to baptize or to ordain.
But. . .
The Church has the power to bind and to loose, and by accepting the baptism (and indeed, the ordinations) of the heterodox, the Church uses its power, in effect, to sanctify the actions performed by heterodox priests and bishops. It "baptizes" those baptisms and ordinations, bringing them into the Church, so that their efficacy is fully equal to that of those whose baptisms and ordinations were performed within the Church.
It is a simple operations of the Church's oikonomia.
It is a simple operations of the Church's oikonomia.
We need to bring Francisco into this discussion. He believes that Saint Basil was unaware of the principle of economy and that it was something foisted on Orthodox theology 14 centuries later by Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in an attempt to reconcile Saint Basil and Saint Cyprian of Carthage.
Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999
"This position is reflected in Basil of Caesarea's First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374), addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, which–claiming to follow the practice of "the ancients"--distinguishes among three types of groups "outside" the Church: heretics, "who differ with regard to faith in God;" schismatics, who are separated from the body of the Church "for some ecclesiastical reasons and differ from other [Christians] on questions that can be resolved;" and "parasynagogues," or dissidents who have formed rival communities simply in opposition to legitimate authority (Ep. 188.1). Only in the case of heretics in the strict sense—those with a different understanding of God, among whom Basil includes Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Marcionites--is baptism required for entry into communion with the Church. Concerning the second and third groups, Basil declares that they are still "of the Church," and as such are to be admitted into full communion without baptism. This policy is also reflected in Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, which distinguishes between "Severians" (i.e., non-Chalcedonians) and Nestorians, who are to be received by confession of faith; schismatics, who are to be received by chrismation; and heretics, who alone require baptism. Thus, in spite of the solemn rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils against their christological positions, "Severians" and Nestorians are clearly reckoned as still "of the Church," and seem to be understood in Basil's category of "parasynagogues;" their baptisms are thus understood--to use scholastic language--as valid, if perhaps illicit".
LETTER CLXXXVIII. (CANONICA PRIMA.) To Amphilochius, concerning the Canons. "EVEN a fool," it is said, "when he asks questions," is counted wise. But when a wise man asks questions, he makes even a feel wise. And this, thank God, is my case, as often as I receive a letter from your industrious self. For we become more learned and wiser than we were before, merely by asking questions, because we are taught many things which we did not know; and our anxiety to answer them acts as a teacher to us. Assuredly at the present time, though I have never before paid attention to the points you raise, I have been forced to make accurate enquiry, and to turn over in my mind both whatever I have heard from the elders, and all that I have been taught in conformity with their lessons.
I. As to your enquiry about the Cathari, a statement has already been made, and you have properly reminded me that it is right to follow the custom obtaining in each region, because those, who at the time gave decision on these points, held different opinions concerning their baptism. But the baptism of the Pepuzeni seems to me to have no authority; and I am astonished how this can have escaped Dionysius, acquainted as he was with the canons. The old authorities decided to accept that baptism which in nowise errs from the faith. Thus they used the names of heresies, of schisms, and of unlawful congregations. By heresies they meant men who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith; by schisms men who had separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution; by unlawful congregations gatherings held by disorderly presbyters or bishops or by unin- structed laymen. As, for instance, if a man be convicted of crime, and prohibited from discharging ministerial functions, and then refuses to submit to the canons, but arrogates to himself episcopal and ministerial rights, and persons leave the Catholic Church and join him, this is unlawful assembly. To disagree with members of the Church about repentance, is schism. Instances of heresy are those of the Manichae- ans, of the Valentinians, of the Marcionites, and of these Pepuzenes; for with them there comes in at once their disagreement concerning the actual faith in God. So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they still belonged to the Church.
As to those who assembled in unlawful congregations, their decision was to join them again to the Church, after they had been brought to a better state by proper repentance and rebuke, and so, in many cases, when men in orders had rebelled with the disorderly, to receive them on their repentance, into the same rank. Now the Pepuzeni are plainly heretical, for, by unlawfully and shamefully applying to Montanus and Priscilla the title of the Paraclete, they have blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. They are, therefore, to be condemned for ascribing divinity to men; and for outraging the Holy Ghost by comparing Him to men. They are thus also liable to eternal damnation, inasmuch as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost admits of no forgiveness. What ground is there, then, for the acceptance of the baptism of men who baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla? For those who have not been baptized into the names delivered to us have not been baptized at all. So that, although this escaped the vigilance of the great Dionysius, we must by no means imitate his error. The absurdity of the position is obvious in a moment, and evident to all who are gifted with even a small share of reasoning capacity.
The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatae, by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And therefore those who were from time to time baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the church to be purified by the Church's true baptism. Nevertheless, since it has seemed to some of those of Asia that, for the sake of management of the majority, their baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted. We must, however, perceive the iniquitous action of the Encratites; who, in order to shut themselves out from being received back by the Church have endeavoured for the future to anticipate readmission by a peculiar baptism of their own, violating, in this manner even their own special practice. My opinion, therefore, is that nothing being distinctly laid down concerning them, it is our duty to reject their baptism, and that in the case of any one who has received baptism from them, we should, on his coming to the church, baptize him. If, however, there is any likelihood of this being detrimental to general discipline, we must fall back upon custom, and follow the fathers who have ordered what course we are to pursue. For I am under some apprehension lest, in our wish to discourage them from baptizing, we may, through the severity of our decision, be a hindrance to those who are being saved. If they accept our baptism, do not allow this to distress us. We are by no means bound to return them the same favour, but only strictly to obey canons. On every ground let it be enjoined that those who come to us from their baptism be anointed in the presence of the faithful, and only on these terms approach the mysteries. I am aware that I have received into episcopal rank Izois and Saturninus from the Encratite following. I am precluded therefore from separating from the Church those who have been united to their company, inasmuch as, through my acceptance of the bishops, I have promulgate d a kind of canon of communion with them.
II. The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed. In this case it is not only the being about to be born who is vindicated, but the woman in her attack upon herself; because in most cases women who make such attempts die. The destruction of the embryo is an additional crime, a second murder, at all events if we regard it as done with intent. The punishment, however, of these women should not be for life, but for the term of ten years. And let their treatment depend not on mere lapse of time, but on the character of their repentance.
III. A deacon who commits fornication after his appointment to the diaconate is to be deposed. But, after he has been rejected and ranked among the laity, he is not to be excluded from communion. For there is an ancient canon that those who have fallen from their degree are to be subjected to this kind of punishment alone.
Herein, as I suppose, the ancient authorities followed the old rule "Thou shalt not avenge twice for the same thing." There is this further reason too, that laymen, when expelled from the place of the faithful, are from time to time restored to the rank whence they have fallen; but the deacon undergoes once for all the lasting penalty of deposition. His deacon's orders not being restored to him, they rested at this one punishment. So far is this as regards what depends on law laid down. But generally a truer remedy is the departure from sin. Wherefore that man will give me full proof of his cure who, after rejecting grace for the sake of the indulgence of the flesh, has then, through bruising of the flesh and the enslaving of it by means of self control, abandoned the pleasures whereby he was subdued. We ought therefore to know both what is of exact prescription and what is of custom; and, in cases which do not admit of the highest treatment, to follow the traditional direction.
IV. In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance.
V. Heretics repenting at death ought to be received; yet to be received, of course, not indiscriminately, but on trial of exhibition of true repentance and of producing fruit in evidence of their zeal for salvation.
VI. The fornication of canonical persons is not to be reckoned as wedlock, and their union is to be completely dissolved, for this is both profitable for the security of the Church and will prevent the heretics from having a ground of attack against us, as though we induced men to join us by the attraction of liberty to sin.
VII. Abusers of themselves with mankind, and with beasts, as also murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, are deserving of the same punishment. Whatever rule you have in the case of the rest, observe also in their case. There can, however, be no doubt that we ought to receive those who have repented of impurity committed in ignorance for thirty years. In this case there is ground for forgiveness in ignorance, in the spontaneity of confession, and the long extent of time. Perhaps they have been delivered to Satan for a whole age of man that they may learn not to behave unseemly; wherefore order them to be received without delay, specially if they shed tears to move your mercy, and shew a manner of living worthy of compassion.
VIII. The man who in a rage has taken up a hatchet against his own wife is a murderer. But it is what I should have expected from your intelligence that you should very properly remind me to speak on these points more fully, because a wide distinction must be drawn between cases where there is and where there is not intent. A case of an act purely unintentional, and widely removed from the purpose of the agent, is that of a man who throws a stone at a dog or a tree, and hits a man. The object was to drive off the beast or to shake down the fruit. The chance comer falls fortuitously in the way of the blow, and the act is unintentional. Unintentional too is the act of any one who strikes another with a strap or a flexible stick, for the purpose of chastising him, and the man who is being beaten dies. In this case it must be taken into consideration that the object was not to kill, but to improve, the offender. Further, among unintentional acts must be reckoned the case of a man in a fight who when warding off an enemy's attack with cudgel or hand, hits him without mercy in some vital part, so as to injure him, though not quite to kill him. This, however, comes very near to the intentional; for the man who employs such a weapon in self defence, or who strikes without mercy, evidently does not spare his opponent, because he is mastered by passion. In like manner the case of any one who uses a heavy cudgel, or a stone too big for a man to stand, is reckoned among the unintentional, because he does not do what he meant: in his rage he deals such a blow as to kill his victim, yet all he had in his mind was to give him a thrashing, not to do him to death. If, however, a man uses a sword, or anything of the kind, he has no excuse: certainly none if he throws his hatchet. For he does not strike with the hand, so that the force of the blow may be within his own control, but throws, so that from the weight and edge of the iron, and the force of the throw, the wound cannot fail to be fatal.
On the other hand acts done in the attacks of war or robbery are distinctly intentional, and admit of no doubt. Robbers kill for greed, and to avoid conviction. Soldiers who inflict death in war do so with the obvious purpose not of fighting, nor chastising, but of killing their opponents. And if any one has concocted some magic philtre for some other reason, and then causes death, I count this as intentional. Women frequently endeavour to draw men to love them by incantations and magic knots, and give them drugs which dull their intelligence. Such women, when they cause death, though the result of their action may not be what they intended, are nevertheless, on account of their proceedings being magical and prohibited, to be reckoned among intentional homicides. Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses. So much on this subject.
IX. The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain. Yet, in relation with women, very strict expressions are to be found; as, for instance, the words of the apostle "He which is joined to a harlot is one body" and of Jeremiah, If a wife "become another man's shall be return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?" And again, "He that hath an adulteress is a feel and impious." Yet custom ordains that men who commit adultery and are in fornication be retained by their wives. Consequently I do not know if the woman who lives with the man who has been dismissed can properly be called an adulteress; the charge in this case attaches to the woman who has put away her husband, and depends upon the cause for which she withdrew from wedlock. In the case of her being beaten, and refusing to submit, it would be better for her to endure than to be separated from her husband; in the case of her objecting to pecuniary loss, even here she would not have sufficient ground. If her reason is his living in fornication we do not find this in the custom of the church; but from an unbelieving husband a wife is commanded not to depart, but to remain, on account of the uncertainty of the issue. "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shall save thy husband?" Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman's husband to come over to her.
X. Those who swear that they will not receive ordination, declining orders upon oath, must not be driven to perjure themselves, although there does seem to be a canon making concessions to such persons. Yet I have found by experience that perjurers never turn out well. Account must however be taken of the form of the oath, its terms, the frame of mind in which it was taken, and the minutest additions made to the terms, since, if no ground of relief can anywhere be found, such persons must be dismissed. The case, however, of Severus, I mean of the presbyter ordained by him, does seem to me to allow of relief of this kind, if you will permit it. Give directions for the district placed under Mestia, to which the man was appointed, to be reckoned tinder Vasoda. Thus he will not forswear himself by not departing from the place, and Longinus, having Cyriacus with him, will not leave the Church unprovided for, nor himself be guilty of neglect of work. I moreover shall not be held guilty of taking action in contravention of any canons by making a concession to Cyriacus who had sworn that he would remain at Mindana and yet accepted the transfer. His return will be in accordance with his oath, and his obedience to the arrangement will not be reckoned against him as perjury, because it was not added to his oath that he would not go, even a short time, from Mindana, but would remain there for the future. Severus, who pleads forgetfulness, I shall pardon, only telling him that One who knows what is secret will not overlook the ravaging of His Church by a man of such a character; a man who originally appoints uncanonically, then imposes oaths in violation of the Gospel, then tells a man to perjure himself in the matter of his transfer, and last of all lies in pretended forgetfulness. I am no judge of hearts; I only judge by what I hear; let us leave vengeance to the Lord, and ourselves pardon the common human error of forgetfulness, and receive the man without question.
XI. The man who is guilty of unintentional homicide has given sufficient satisfaction in eleven years. We shall, without doubt, observe what is laid down by Moses in the case of wounded men, and shall not hold a murder to have been committed in the case of a man who lies down after he has been struck, and walks again leaning on his staff. If, however, he does not rise again after he has been struck, nevertheless, from there being no intent to kill, the striker is a homicide, but an unintentional homicide.
XII. The canon absolutely excludes digamists from the ministry.
XIII. Homicide in war is not reckoned by our Fathers as homicide; I presume froth their wish to make concession to men fighting on behalf of chastity and true religion. Perhaps, however, it is well to counsel that those whose hands are not clean only abstain from communion for three years.
XIV. A taker of usury, if he consent to spend his unjust gain on the poor, and to be rid for the future of the plague of covetousness, may be received into the ministry.
XV. I am astonished at your requiring exactitude in Scripture, and arguing that there is something forced in the diction of the interpretation which gives the meaning of the original, but does not exactly render what is meant by the Hebrew word. Yet I must not carelessly pass by the question started by an enquiring mind. At the creation of the world, birds of the air and the fishes of the sea had the same origin; for both kinds were produced from the water. The reason is that both have the same characteristics. The latter swim in the water, the former in the air. They are therefore mentioned together. The form of expression is not used without distinction, but of all that lives in the water it is used very properly. The birds of the air and the fishes of the sea are subject to man; and not they alone, but all that passes through the paths of the sea. For every water-creature is not a fish, as for instance the sea monsters, whales, sharks, dolphins, seals, even sea-horses, sea-dogs, saw-fish, sword- fish, and sea-cows; and, if you like, sea nettles, cockles and all hard- shelled creatures of whom none are fish, and all pass through the paths of the sea; so that there are three kinds, birds of the air, fishes of the sea, and all water-creatures which are distinct from fish, and pass through the paths of the sea.
XVI. Naaman was not a great man with the Lord, but with his lord; that is, he was one of the chief princes of the King of the Syrians. Read your Bible carefully, and you will find the answer to your question there.
The First Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium.596 (This Epistle, number ct xxxviij., is found translated in Volume VIII. of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 223 et seqq.) Canon I. As to the question concerning the Puritans the custom of every country is to be observed, since they who have discussed this point are of various sentiments. The [baptism] of the Pepuzenes I make no account of, and I wonder that Dionysius the canonist was of another mind. The ancients speak of heresies, which entirely break men off, and make them aliens from the faith. Such are the Manichæans, Valentinians, Marcionites and Pepuzenes, who sin against the Holy Ghost, who baptize into the Father, Son and Montanus, or Priscilla. Schisms are caused by ecclesiastical disputes, and for causes that are not incurable, and for differences concerning penance. The Puritans are such schismatics. The ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation; because they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have broken the succession. They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore they ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by laymen. Because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their baptism] be allowed: but not that of the Encratites; for they have altered their baptism, to make themselves incapable of being received by the Church. Yet custom and the Fathers, that is bishops, who have the administration, must be followed; for I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved; while I would raise fears in them concerning their baptism. We are not to allow their baptism, because they allow ours, but strictly to observe the canons. But let none be received without unction. When we received Zois and Saturninus to the Episcopal chair, we made, as it were, a canon to receive those in communion with them. Canon II. Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not. Canon III. A deacon guilty of fornication, is deposed, not excommunicated; for the ancient canon forbids a single crime to be twice punished. And further, a layman excommunicated may be restored to the degree from which he falls, but a clergyman deposed cannot. Yet it is better to cure men of their sins by mortification, and to execute the canon only in cases where we cannot reach what is more perfect. Canon IV. They that marry a second time, used to be under penance a year or two. They that marry a third time, three or four years. But we have a custom, that he who marries a third time be under penance five years, not by canon, but tradition. Half of this time they are to be hearers, afterwards Co-standers; but to abstain from the communion of the Good Thing, when they have shewed some fruit of repentance. Canon V. Heretics, upon their death-bed, giving good signs of their conversion, to be received. Canon VI. Let it not be counted a marriage, when one belonging to the canon commits fornication, but let them be forced to part.597 Canon VII. They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore com 605 mand them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion. Canon VIII. He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of wilful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and undesignedly kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defence, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it die upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees. Canon IX. Our Lord is equal, to the man and woman forbidding divorce, save in case of fornication; but custom requires women to retain their husbands, though they be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take another, and though he were deserted for adultery, yet St. Basil will be positive, that the other woman who afterward takes him is guilty of adultery; but the wife is not allowed this liberty. And the man who deserts an innocent wife is not allowed to marry. Canon X. That they who swear that they will not be ordained, be not forced to break their oath. Severus, Bishop of Masada, who had ordained Cyriacus priest to a country church, subject to the Bishop of Mesthia, is referred to the divine tribunal, upon his pretending that he did it by surprise. Cyriacus had upon his ordination, been forced, contrary to canon, to swear that he would continue in that country church; but the Bishop of Mesthia, to whom that church properly belonged, forced him out. St. Basil advises Amphilochius to lay the country church to Masada, and make it subject to Severus, and to permit Cyriacus to return to it and save his oath; and by this means he supposes that Longinus, the lord of that country, would be prevailed upon to alter his resolution of laying that church desolate, as he declared he would upon Cyriacus’s expulsion. Canon XI. He that is guilty of involuntary murder, shall do eleven years’ penance—that is, if the murdered person, after he had here received the wound, do again go abroad, and yet afterward die of the wound. Canon XII. The canon excludes from the ministry those who are guilty of digamy. Canon XIII. Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder; yet I think it advisable for such as have been guilty of it to forbear communion three years. Canon XIV. An usurer, giving his unjust gain to the poor, and renouncing his love of money, may be admitted into the clergy. Canons XV. and XVI. Not properly canons, but explications of Scripture, and therefore neither Balsamon, nor Aristenus, regard them as canons.
Sainthood/Holiness and Baptism and the bounds of the visible church I
Prayers of the Catechumens
O Lord, our God, Who dwellest on high and regardest the humble of heart; Who hast sent forth as the salvation of mankind Thine Only-begotten Son and God, our Lord Jesus Christ; look down upon Thy servants, the catechumens, who have bowed their heads before Thee; make them worthy in due season of the laver of regeneration. Unite them to thy Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, and number them with Thy chosen flock.
O God our God, the Creator and Maker of all things,who wiliest that all men should be saved, and should come to the knowledgeof the truth, look upon thy servants the catechumens and deliver them fromtheir former delusion and from the wiles of the adversary. And call them unto life eternal, enlightening their souls and bodies and numbering them with thy rational flock, which is called by thy holy name. That with us they also may glorify thine all-honorableand magnificent name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,now and ever, and unto ages of ages.
Prayer for Those who are Making Ready for Holy Illumination
Reveal, 0 Master, thy countenance to those who arepreparing for holy illumination and who long to put away the pollution of sin. Enlighten their minds. Secure them in the faith. Establish them in hope. Perfect them in love. Show them to be honorable members of thy Christ, who gave himself as a deliverance for our souls.For thou art our Illumination, and to thee do wesend up glory, to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, nowand ever, and unto ages of ages.
So catechumens and photizomenoi are not members of the Church of Christ stricto senso, they are not "inside the bounds of the visible Church" strictly speaking....
....but both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church venerate, for example, Saint Adrian of Nicomedia, who publicly confessed his Christian faith, though he had not been baptised or admited as catechumen by the Church. He was not a Christian stricto senso, he was not "inside the bounds of the visible Church" strictly speaking, whereas his wife Saint Natalia was a baptised Christian, a Christian "inside the bounds of the visible Church".
Before their martyrdom they belonged to the Church but in different ways. Both of them, because of the blood they shed for Christ, belong now to the triunphant Church on heaven.
Romanov family was canonized in 1981 as new martyrs by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. They were canonized along with their servants, who had been killed along with them. The canonized servants were their court physician, Yevgeny Botkin; their footman Alexei Trupp; their cook, Ivan Kharitonov; and Alexandra's maid, Anna Demidova. Also canonized were two servants killed in September 1918, lady in waiting Anastasia Hendrikova and tutor Catherine Adolphovna Schneider. All were canonized as victims of oppression by the Bolsheviks. The Russian Orthodox Church did not canonize the servants, two of whom were not Russian Orthodox: Alexei Trupp was Roman Catholic and Catherine Adolphovna Schneider was Lutheran.
Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999
"This position is reflected in Basil of Caesarea's First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374), addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, which–claiming to follow the practice of "the ancients"--distinguishes among three types of groups "outside" the Church: heretics, "who differ with regard to faith in God;" schismatics, who are separated from the body of the Church "for some ecclesiastical reasons and differ from other [Christians] on questions that can be resolved;" and "parasynagogues," or dissidents who have formed rival communities simply in opposition to legitimate authority (Ep. 188.1). Only in the case of heretics in the strict sense—those with a different understanding of God, among whom Basil includes Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Marcionites--is baptism required for entry into communion with the Church. Concerning the second and third groups, Basil declares that they are still "of the Church," and as such are to be admitted into full communion without baptism. This policy is also reflected in Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, which distinguishes between "Severians" (i.e., non-Chalcedonians) and Nestorians, who are to be received by confession of faith; schismatics, who are to be received by chrismation; and heretics, who alone require baptism. Thus, in spite of the solemn rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils against their christological positions, "Severians" and Nestorians are clearly reckoned as still "of the Church," and seem to be understood in Basil's category of "parasynagogues;" their baptisms are thus understood--to use scholastic language--as valid, if perhaps illicit".
Just a quick comment! Those who have received baptism in the Church (groups two and three) will NEVER NEVER be baptized again. The Baptism of the Church is UTTERLY irrepeatable. Saint Cyprian of Carthage holds EXACTLY the same position .... as have ALL Orthodox for the last 2,000 years.
Romanov family was canonized in 1981 as new martyrs by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. They were canonized along with their servants, who had been killed along with them. The canonized servants were their court physician, Yevgeny Botkin; their footman Alexei Trupp; their cook, Ivan Kharitonov; and Alexandra's maid, Anna Demidova. Also canonized were two servants killed in September 1918, lady in waiting Anastasia Hendrikova and tutor Catherine Adolphovna Schneider. All were canonized as victims of oppression by the Bolsheviks. The Russian Orthodox Church did not canonize the servants, two of whom were not Russian Orthodox: Alexei Trupp was Roman Catholic and Catherine Adolphovna Schneider was Lutheran.
To be continued...
These two servants of the Imperial family Alexei Trupp and Catherine Schneider who were mistakenly canonised by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, have now been removed from the Canon of the Saints.
Yes but when they were mistakenly or not canonised (a quite Western concept by the way) by the ROCOR, the members of the Holy Synod of the ROCOR considered that they belonged to the Church in some way (if they were not "of the Church", using Saint Basil´s terminology, at all, the bishops of the ROCOR would never had proclaimed them martyrs, there is no martyrdom "outside the bounds of the Church"). For the bishops of the ROCOR Saint Alexei Trupp and Saint Catherine Schneider, were, "of the Church", just as Saint Adrian was, although they were not members of the Orthodox Church (they were not "inside the bounds of the visible Church"). And the bishops of the ROCOR were, as I believe, perfectly aware of the words of Saint John Chrysostom in this Homily 11 on Ephesians (Ephesians 4:4-7), frequently, understood as referred to heretics and schismatics:
"What then is this? He said, that not even the blood of martyrdom can wash out this sin. For tell me for what do you suffer as a martyr? Is it not for the glory of Christ? Thou then that yieldest up your life for Christ's sake, how do you lay waste the Church, for whose sake Christ yielded up His life?"
The bishops of the ROCOR considered, mistakenly or not, that they "suffered as martyrs" (the ROC-MP considered that the Romanov family were not martyrs but passionbeares) not only "for the glory of Christ" but also for the glory of his Church, for "Christ's sake" yes, but also and as faithful members of the Church and not as enemies of his unity.
The "canonization" of Saint Alexei Trupp and Saint Catherine Schneider was a mistake (the Moscow Patriarchate was right, the ROCOR was wrong), what about the baptism of former Catholics and Protestants?
The "canonization" of Saint Alexei Trupp and Saint Catherine Schneider was a mistake (the Moscow Patriarchate was right, the ROCOR was wrong), what about the baptism of former Catholics and Protestants?
At the time there was no way of checking the data in the Soviet Union. There was almost zero communication.
Alexei Trupp and Katherine Schneider undoubtedly suffered martyric deaths but it is certainly not our right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic or Lutheran Churches. It is the prerogative of those Churches to acknowledge their own martyrs.
Could you please review your lengthy citations and point out what you want us to notice.
Originally Posted by Francisco
but when they were mistakenly or not canonised (a quite Western concept by the way)
Actually it is not. "Canonisation" comes to us from Greek and in this instance simply means to add a name to the Canon of Saints.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/24/1303:19 AM.
At the time there was no way of checking the data in the Soviet Union. There was almost zero communication.
OK. No problem with this.
But...I suppose they were perfectly aware of the fact that they were not Orthodox Christians? Were not they? These data were not in the Soviet Union records but in the records of the members of the Russian Family and other Russian institutions in exile (as the ROCOR).
I consider that the bishops of the Holy Synod of the ROCOR glorified a Catholic martyr and a a Lutheran martyr because they believed and they still believe that the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ (the ROCOR being a Local Church) and not just a branch of the Church of Christ (the Catholic and the Orthodox Church do not admit the branch theory, they agree in this point).
They, as far a I understand, believed, wrongly or not, that this particular Catholic martyr and this particular Lutheran martyr belonged, in some way, to the Church of Christ (obviously in a different way that the Orthodox martyrs of the Romanov family belonged to Church and in a different way Saint Adrian belonged to the Church). So they considered that their glorification was the business of the Orthodox Church (the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) and not the business of the Catholic or of the Lutheran Church.
Well I suppose that when you die as martyr you die as martyr of Christ and of Christ´s Church and not for the Pope´s sake or for Luther´s or his ideas´ sake.
The Roman martyrs (before the schism), for example, belong not to the Pope or to the Catholic Church but to the Church of Christ.
Obviously is the business of the Church of Russia, for example, the glorification of the faithful of the Church of Russia and the business of the Church of Bulgaria the glorification of the faithful of this particular local Church, but obviously we are talking about Churches in full communion. I can not imagine the ROCOR, not being in communion with the Church of Rome, asking the Catholic Church for the glorification of a Roman Catholic. I suppose that the bishops of the ROCOR believed that this particular Roman Catholic belonged after his martyrdom to the triunphant Church in heaven and not to the the Roman Catholic Church.
For me is not an easy question, a question that can be solved just saying that it was a mistake of the Holy Synod of the ROCOR, or that the bishops had not enought information, but obviously I am not a member of this local Church (as father Ambrose is, if I am not wrong) and I know very little about the ROCOR. I tend to believe that behind Church decisions are, appart for the action of the Holy Spirt, the Spirit of the Truth, solid theological and canonical reasons.
But...I suppose they were perfectly aware of the fact that they were not Orthodox Christians? Were not they?
No, the bishops were very embarrassed when the religious affiliation of these two people emerged later. Can you really imagine the bishops of the ultra conservative Russian Church Abroad adding a Catholic and Lutheran to the Canon of Saints? Let the heavens fall! :-)
Quote
(the ROCOR being a Local Church)
Since the 2007 union with Moscow ROCOR has the status of a self-governing Church within the Church of Russia. This status is less than autocephalous or autonomous.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/24/1312:58 PM.
Would be the veneration of Emperor Constantine the Great as saint of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic) compatible with those historical sources that say that the baptism of the first openly Christian Emperor was performed by Eusebius, the Arianizing bishop of Nicomedia and author of the Vita Constantini?
If these sources were right could we say that the baptism of Saint Constantine was celebrated "inside the bounds of the visible Church"?
Constantine had known death would soon come. Within the Church of the Holy Apostles, Constantine had secretly prepared a final resting-place for himself.[245] It came sooner than he had expected. Soon after the Feast of Easter 337, Constantine fell seriously ill.[246] He left Constantinople for the hot baths near his mother's city of Helenopolis (Altinova), on the southern shores of the Gulf of İzmit. There, in a church his mother built in honor of Lucian the Apostle, he prayed, and there he realized that he was dying. Seeking purification, he became a catechumen, and attempted a return to Constantinople, making it only as far as a suburb of Nicomedia.[247] He summoned the bishops, and told them of his hope to be baptized in the River Jordan, where Christ was written to have been baptized. He requested the baptism right away, promising to live a more Christian life should he live through his illness. The bishops, Eusebius records, "performed the sacred ceremonies according to custom".[248] He chose the Arianizing bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop of the city where he lay dying, as his baptizer.[249] In postponing his baptism, he followed one custom at the time which postponed baptism until after infancy.[250] It has been thought that Constantine put off baptism as long as he did so as to be absolved from as much of his sin as possible.[251] Constantine died soon after at a suburban villa called Achyron, on the last day of the fifty-day festival of Pentecost directly following Pascha (or Easter), on 22 May 337.[252]
And yes I know perfectly well that there are traditions both in the Eastern and the Western Churches saying that Constantine was baptised noy by Eusebius but by Pope SylvesterI.
At the on line "synaxarion" of the OCA there is nothing about the identity of Constantine´s "baptizor":
After the Council of Nicea, St Constantine continued with his active role in the welfare of the Church. He accepted holy Baptism on his deathbed, having prepared for it all his whole life. St Constantine died on the day of Pentecost in the year 337 and was buried in the church of the Holy Apostles, in a crypt he had prepared for himself.
Actually, nobody is quite sure who baptized Constantine (but it sure wasn't Pope Sylvester), and, moreover, even if it was Eusebius of Nicomedia, he was still a bishop in good standing within the Church. It is unfortunate that people like to reduce the theological disputes of the time to a simple black-and-white Arianism vs. Niceanism, but the truth is far more complex: the Nicene homoousios was deliberately ambiguous because its intention was to create a general consensus within the Church--and on that criterion, it was a real success. However, it turned out to be so vague as to allow interpretations that some Nicenes thought were Arian, and some Arians considered ditheite. There were thus many different gradations of Nicene Christianity, and many different gradations of Arianism, and the situation was not resolved until the Second Council, in 381, which, in adopting the Cappodocian theology of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and above all, Gregory Nanzianen, created a newer, more refined theological synthesis which finally put Arianism to bed. Even then, Rome, ever conservative, held to the Paleo-Nicene theology of the First Council, and did not accept Constantinople I until the Council of Ephesus fifty years later.
Would be the veneration of Emperor Constantine the Great as saint of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic) compatible with those historical sources that say that the baptism of the first openly Christian Emperor was performed by Eusebius, the Arianizing bishop of Nicomedia and author of the Vita Constantini?
If these sources were right could we say that the baptism of Saint Constantine was celebrated "inside the bounds of the visible Church"?
Eusebius of Nicomedia vacillated 2 or 3 times between orthodoxy and Arianism. I believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both believe he was a canonical bishop at the time of Saint Constantine's baptism.
I see Stuart has addressed this competently.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/25/1303:17 PM.
Was Eusebius "a bishop in good standing within the Church" a "canonical bishop" or rather "a bishop in good standing with the Emperor", a bishop of the "State Church"?
What about Anastasios of Constantinople? Was Anastasios a "canonical bishop"?
Anastasios was the patriarch of Constantinople from 730 to 754. He succeeded Germanos I (715–730). Anastasios was heavily involved in the controversy over icons (images). His opinion of icons changed twice. First he opposed them, then he favored them, and finally he opposed them again.
Were the sacraments (baptisms, ordinations) celebrated by Atanasios, "canonical Patriarch" of Constantinople, "valid" always or only during the period "he favored icons"?
What about unionists Patriarchs of Constantinople John XI, Joseph II and Metrophanes II? Were not they "canonical bishops"? What about the "validity" of the sacraments celebrated by them?
What about patriarch Cyril I of Constantinople?
Were not all they "canonical bishops" till their death or deposition?
In Church History can we find both open or secret heretics among the lists of "canonical bishops"?
Are these bishops inside or outside the bounds of the visible Church?
Can a "heretic bishop" be considered a "canonical bishop" only for the fact that the Church of Christ could not condem him because he was in "good standing with political power"?
Does the "validity" of the sacraments celebrated by a bishop depend on his faith (orthodox, unorthodox) or on his formal condemnation or not by the Church?
Are the sacraments celebrated by an "unorthodox" "canonical" bishop "valid"?
Are the sacraments celebrated by an "orthodox" bishop unfairly condemned by the Church "valid"?
My heart was groaning within me. Such a plethora of questions! How can I answer them all?
Then realisation struck; I cannot answer them. They are are posited on the assumption of a Roman Catholic concept of “validity.” That is outside my parameters of knowledge.
All the personages and events you mention belong to the period when the Pope saw them as under his authority. So you should be able to find answers from within your own Church theologians and historians.
Originally Posted by Francisco
Was Eusebius "a bishop in good standing within the Church" a "canonical bishop" or rather "a bishop in good standing with the Emperor", a bishop of the "State Church"?
What about Anastasios of Constantinople? Was Anastasios a "canonical bishop"?
Anastasios was the patriarch of Constantinople from 730 to 754. He succeeded Germanos I (715–730). Anastasios was heavily involved in the controversy over icons (images). His opinion of icons changed twice. First he opposed them, then he favored them, and finally he opposed them again.
Were the sacraments (baptisms, ordinations) celebrated by Atanasios, "canonical Patriarch" of Constantinople, "valid" always or only during the period "he favored icons"?
What about unionists Patriarchs of Constantinople John XI, Joseph II and Metrophanes II? Were not they "canonical bishops"? What about the "validity" of the sacraments celebrated by them?
What about patriarch Cyril I of Constantinople?
Were not all they "canonical bishops" till their death or deposition?
In Church History can we find both open or secret heretics among the lists of "canonical bishops"?
Are these bishops inside or outside the bounds of the visible Church?
Can a "heretic bishop" be considered a "canonical bishop" only for the fact that the Church of Christ could not condem him because he was in "good standing with political power"?
Does the "validity" of the sacraments celebrated by a bishop depend on his faith (orthodox, unorthodox) or on his formal condemnation or not by the Church?
Are the sacraments celebrated by an "unorthodox" "canonical" bishop "valid"?
Are the sacraments celebrated by an "orthodox" bishop unfairly condemned by the Church "valid"?
1. Father Ambrose says that "validity" is a "Roman Catholic" concept, but we are talking here about Orthodox clergy who do re-baptise or do re-ordain former Catholic or former Protestant converts because they consider, rightly or not, that these converts are unbaptised or unordained. So, independly of the historical origin (in Western Scholasticism) of the concept, I would say that this is a non irrelevant concept in current Orthodox sacramental theology.
See, for example:
George D. Metallinos, I confess One Baptism: Interpretation and Application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos (a Contribution to the Historico-canonical Evaluation of the Problem of the Validity of Western Baptism), ISBN 978-960-85542-0-7, St. Pauls Monastery, Holy Mountain, Greece, 1994
I understand that those who do not re-ordain do so because they consider that these former Catholic priests (as Saint Alexis Toth or Archbishop Nathaniel Popp)are not unordained, as far as a bishop ordained them.
I understand that those who do re-ordain do so because they considered that they are unordained, besides the fact that a "bishop" ordained them. For them there is a problem with these "bishops" (relationship of heretics and schismatics with the Church of Christ). What is wrong with these bishops? What they do believe (secret heretics) or rather what they do teach (open heretics)? Is the problem in their formal relationship with the Church (If they have been excommunicated or not, for example)?
George D. Metallinos, I confess One Baptism: Interpretation and Application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos (a Contribution to the Historico-canonical Evaluation of the Problem of the Validity of Western Baptism), ISBN 978-960-85542-0-7, St. Pauls Monastery, Holy Mountain, Greece, 1994
As you know I searched this book and Metallinos mentions neither validity nor liceity.
See message 400468.
The reference to "validity" occurs, as you have quoted several times,on the frontispiece of the book and was, I would say, almost certainly written by another hand than Metallinos'.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/29/1302:45 AM.
2What is wrong with these bishops? What they do believe (secret heretics) or rather what they do teach (open heretics)?
For the past 30 years Archbishop Dionysios Psathas never baptized a single Catholic convert in the local diocese.
For the last 6 years the new Archbishop Amphilochios Tsouras has baptised every Catholic convert.
How can I explain that to a Roman Catholic such as yourself who seems to work only with concepts of validity and liceity and does not understand both the complicated history of this question and the use of ‘economy’?
How can I explain that to a Roman Catholic such as yourself who seems to work only with concepts of validity and liceity and does not understand both the complicated history of this question and the use of ‘economy’?
1. The concept of liceicy was used here only by "Hieromonk Ambrose" and not by "Francisco".
2. Francisco has never referred to father Ambrose as a Russian Orthodox but as an Orthodox Hieromonk belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (see profile).
3. In the Greek (original) version of father Metallinos´ book on line the word κύρος occurs 7 times in genitive and 28 times in nominative or accusative, whereas the word εγκυρότητα occurs 3 times. Francisco says that these words mean in this book "validity" whereas father Ambrose says that they mean something else.
4. The fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, as well as those of the Council in Trullo, and Sain Basil of Caesarea did not use the concept of ‘economy’. Francisco considers the use of this concept (a concept "employed in later canonical literature as roughly the equivalent of "pastoral discretion" or stewardship") completely unnecesary.
5. Father Ambrose does not answer, if I am not wrong, to Franciscos´ question about the relationship of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Saint Constantine´s baptizor according to some historians, with the visible Church: Was Eusebius, a canonical bishop who signed "with hand only, not heart" the Confession of the First Council of Nicaea, using Amidon expression,inside or outside the visible Church?
1. The concept of liceicy was used here only by "Hieromonk Ambrose" and not by "Francisco".
Validity and liceity are intimately linked in Catholic sacramental theology.
Quote
2. Francisco has never referred to father Ambrose as a Russian Orthodox but as an Orthodox Hieromonk belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (see profile).
Fr Ambrose is a monk of the Russian Orthodox Church. His "boss" is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow whom he commemorates at every church service as "our great Lord and Father Kirill...."
Quote
Francisco considers the use of this concept (a concept "employed in later canonical literature as roughly the equivalent of "pastoral discretion" or stewardship") completely unnecesary.
Francisco is free to consider that but he would be wrong. The use of economy plays a vital role, especially when Orthodox bishops are making decisions as to the mode of reception of converts from the many Christian confessions.
Quote
5. Father Ambrose does not answer, if I am not wrong, to Franciscos´ question about the relationship of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Saint Constantine´s baptizor according to some historians, with the visible Church: Was Eusebius, a canonical bishop who signed "with hand only, not heart" the Confession of the First Council of Nicaea, using Amidon expression,inside or outside the visible Church?
Fr Ambrose has already answered, saying he believes that both our Churches consider Saint Constantine was baptized by Eusebius at a time when Eusebius was a canonical bishop.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/29/1305:11 AM.
The author(s) of the articles "Eusebius of Nicomedia" at the Orthodox wiki is not as "polite" as I am when he or she writes:
"Eusebius of Nicomedia was initially bishop of Berytus (modern day Beirut) in Phoenicia. He later became Bishop of Nicomedia before finally becoming Archbishop of Constantinople. He was a heretic, a supporter of Arius, who used his influence among the members of the family of Constantine the Great to further the Arian position as well as his personal esteem".
"As bishop of the area of Constantine’s residence, Eusebius baptized Constantine in May 337. The baptism occurred only a few days before Constantine died on May 22, 337. While not a confirmed Arian, Constantius fell under the intrigues of Eusebius, who played up to the emperor while favoring Arian policies. In 339, having strengthened his position with the emperor and through his intrigues at the court, Eusibius engineered his appointment as Archbishop of Constantinople by expelling Paul I of Constantinople".
If the author of the article is right, then we must agree that Saint Constantine was baptised by Eusebius, canonical bishop of Nicomedia and heretic. There is no problem with this if you admit the canons of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils about the [validity] of the baptism of the Arians, but certanly we have got a serious problem if we consider that the sacraments of the heretics are "without grace" (also a later concept I do not like at all).
Our father among the saints Paul the Confessor or Paul I of Constantinople lived during the fourth century, and served as Archbishop of Constantinople during three periods: from 337 to 339, from 341 to 342, and from 346 to 351. The Arians, led by the Eastern emperor, Constantius, revolted against the election of Paul to his see. Emperor Constantius held a council, banishing Paul and electing in his stead Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius also banished other Orthodox bishops to Rome. After Eusebius died, Paul returned to Constantinople. Although he was greeted warmly by the people, Emperor Constantius once again banished him to Rome. The Western emperor, Constans, returned Paul to Constantinople with a threatening letter to his eastern co-ruler, resulting in Paul's reinstatement as archbishop. After Constans was murdered in a palace coup, Paul was banished again, but now to Cucusus in Armenia. There, celebrating the Divine Liturgy, Arians came upon him and strangled him with his omophorion. In 381, Emperor Theodosius the Great transferred St. Paul's relics to Constantinople. Nearly a thousand years later, in 1326, they were further moved to Venice.
Definately Archbishop Paul the Confessor, dispossesed several times of his see, was a bishop of the Christ´s Church.
"Eusebius of Nicomedia.....He was a heretic, a supporter of Arius,
We are agreed that he was a heretic. But it is dishonest of the author to write so simplistically. Eusebius vacillated a couple of times between orthodoxy and Arianism.
If you want an accurate view of either Eusebius or Paul go to Catholic historians. The Pope claims them as bishops of his Church in submission to him.
I must admit I have lost track of what you are trying to prove. Sorry.
Last edited by Hieromonk Ambrose; 10/29/1312:46 PM.
I am trying to prove that the Fathers of the Council in Trullo (Canon 95), for example, established that those heretics baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Trinitarian baptism) “coming over to Orthodoxy”, should not be rebaptized, because they considered that the validity (“Remember, O Lord, according to the multitude of thy compassions, my unworthiness, pardon me every offense both voluntary and involuntary, and withhold not, because of my sins, the grace of thy Holy Spirit from these Gifts here set forth" Liturgy of Saint Basil) of the sacraments had to do not with the virtue (grave sins, public or not), the faith (secret or public heresy) or the formal relationship of the minister with the Church (yes, in Church history we have, unfortunately, enemies of the faith among the lists of canonical bishops and bishops that, because of their Orthodox faith, found themselves outside the limits of the visible Church, deposed, excommunicated…).
In Spanish we have got this saying: “Ni son todos los que están, ni están todos los que son” (possible translations into English: “Neither all who are here are [such], nor all who are [such], are here”, "Neither are here all who matter nor they matter all who're here", “Neither all who are here are [such], nor all who are [such], are here", "Neither all that glitters is gold nor all that's gold glitters"). In J. R. R. Tolkien´s words:
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
Eusebius, for example, was “in the Church”, but, apparently, was not “of the Church”, he glittered but he was not gold.
The references to the Pope or to Catholic Church historians are completely unnecessary here. As far as I know both Eusebius and Paul were archbishops of Constantinople but I do not know if they were always in communion with the bishop of Rome (I would never say that the Pope of Rome was their “boss” or that they were “in submission to him”, or that they belonged to the “Church of the Pope”, I do not use “such” expressions). When I say that Paul of Constantinople belonged to Christ´s Church I mean that he is a citizen of “Jerusalem, the heavenly assembly, and church of the first-born that are written in heaven” (Liturgy of Saint James). The memory of Paul of Constantinople is venerated both by the Catholic (June 7?) and the Orthodox Church (November 6). The memory of Eusebius (originally of Berytus, later of Nicomedia, and finally of Constantinople) is venerated by nobody. The Orthodox and the Catholic Church agree in this point too.
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us".
REGARDING THE RECEPTION OF CONVERTS AND "RE-BAPTISM" Renascent Donatism The great danger posed to the Orthodox Church in the United States today is renascent Donatism. Individuals who believe that the efficacy or reality of a Mystery depends upon the spiritual condition of the clergyman who celebrates them affirm the heretical belief called Donatism which was condemned as a heresy by the Council of Carthage in AD 404. The Donatist heresy manifests itself also when individuals proclaim that certain Churches or jurisdictions — and thus their Mysteries — are “without grace.” This is a sin against the Holy Spirit Who manifests Himself both within and without the Orthodox Church according to the Divine Will. Such Donatistic denial of grace is often a subterfuge to which individuals may resort when trying to justify either their abandonment of their own Bishop or the condemnation of a supposed schismatic element in the Church. Donatistic positions are often assumed by those who are overly preoccupied by juridical correctness and jurisdictional canonicity. Perhaps it would be better to avoid such legalisms, which in any event are foreign to the Orthodox fronema (mindset), and simply to accept the fact that canonical anomalies are currently unavoidable in the new and unusual administrative circumstances encountered by the Orthodox Church in this multi-national, multi-ethnic, heterogeneous American society. Legalists who misuse the Sacred Canons and the Holy Fathers to hurt innocent people - or even guilty people, for that matter — are not champions of the Faith and traditionalists. they are misanthropes — haters of their fellow men — which is a terrible sin. "Love without truth is false; truth without love is ingenuine." From Diocesan News Publication of the Diocese of Denver Greek Orthodox Church of America December 1997 http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm
Francisco, this chapter in the article is aimed at our schismatics in the numerous "Old Calendarist" and "True Orthodox" Churches. We have more than our fair share of Lefebvre-type groups and Sedevacantists.
The point is that in this paper they speak openly about "Donatism" ("the efficacy or reality of a Mystery depends upon the spiritual condition of the clergyman who celebrates" that Mystery) as a heretical belief "condemned" "by the Council of Carthage in AD 404" from an Orthodox point of view.
Apparently there are people in the Orthodox Church who do not consider St. Cyprian of Carthage, the third-century North African councils presided over by him, Firmilian of Caesaraea in Cappadocia and The Apostolic Canons, "probably representative of Church discipline in Syria during the 380s" as the "most qualified and genuine expression" of Orthodox sacramental theology.
Apparently there are people in the Orthodox Church who do not consider St. Cyprian of Carthage, ....as the "most qualified and genuine expression" of Orthodox sacramental theology.
Who are these people?
Saint Cyprian is highly cherished but let's not forget that he fought rather strongly against Pope Saint Stephen over sacramental theology.
The crux of the argument. Pope Stephen taught that baptism outside the Church was salvific and grace-filled ("valid" in your terms.) Saint Cyprian said No! Baptism administered outside the Church is ineffective.
-oOo- One of the Mods wrote an insightful paper on this topic
The Orthodox (Cyprianite) and Catholic (Augustinian) Theology of Sacraments outside the Church
The point is that in this paper they speak openly about "Donatism" ("the efficacy or reality of a Mystery depends upon the spiritual condition of the clergyman who celebrates" that Mystery) as a heretical belief "condemned" "by the Council of Carthage in AD 404" from an Orthodox point of view.
Nobody disagrees and I don't see how this relates to this conversation.
The Synod of the Brithish Orthodox Church to the Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria on the issue of the acceptance of Catholic Baptism: The Coptic Church has always adopted the view of Pope Saint Stephen
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. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
