www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Graceless Heretics?

Dear TotIL:

For the record, I have blond hair. And it is getting extremely blond as I age.

I agree with you, that "the discussion was going quite well between the Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Honesty, attempt to dialogue, and cordiality were all present and active." Presumably, then you will also agree that the comments being made were not properly characterized by ZT as "obnoxious bigotry"

What I then found over the top, however, was ZT's rhetorical question and comment that carried the implication that not only Alex, but all BC's are somehow suspect. I was unable to resist the temptation of making a quip, pointing out the irony of such obnoxous bigotry appearing in a post criticizing obnoxious bigotry.

I accorded her post due respect. And whatever the opinions of your favorite primates, I am bemused to be accused of prejudice. Please, help me out with this: exaclty what I am supposedly prejudiced against?

ZT the Holy Scriptures that are refered to are John 3:23
Romans 6:3-5
1st Peter 3:21
Acts 8:36-39
In these passages the element of water-lots of water-is very important.In the The Shepard of Hermas written around 100ad in the ninth parable it says "They had need to come up through the water,so that they might be made alive;for they could not otherwise enter into the Kingdom of God."
Also in the Didache as it was posted earler the prescribed traditional form is in living water and it is understood that would intail immersion.
poor sinner chad

Well, for the record, I do not regard either Alex or BCs as suspect. And I concede that "bigotry" was perhaps a strong word. :p

But I remain frankly stunned by the BC attitude that so lightly accepts the EO charge that our Catholic sacraments are "graceless." And I remain equally staggered by the barrage of criticism aimed at LatinTrad, in marked contrast to the free pass given Seraphim Reeves. (For the record, I know Seraphim from other boards...there's a history there. In my experience, this gentleman loses no opportunity to bash Catholicism up one side and down the other. That may not technically qualify as bigotry, but if not, I wish you'd supply a better word for it! )

Blessings,

ZT

Dear ZT,

Donatism, according to the Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition, preached "that only those living a blameless life belonged in the church, and, further, that the validity of any sacrament depended upon the personal worthiness of the priest administering it". According to a webpage of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, "Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid."

In either definition, it is clear that Donatism deals with the moral character of the minister of a sacrament, and how that moral character affects the validity of a sacrament. I hope you can see from this that the Orthodox position does not, as you claim, have "Donatism written all over it". The Orthodox make no judgements on the moral character of Roman Catholic clerics. Many Orthodox that I know, myself included, have great respect and admiration for some Roman Catholic clerics that we are familiar with. And the Orthodox Church formally condemns the idea of Donatism. Clearly, Donatism is not at play in the "strict Orthodox" perspective.

I'm not inclined to think that you were deliberately misrepresenting the "strict Orthodox" view because I myself was not familiar with what exactly Donatism taught (I had the basic idea, I think), and had to look it up, and so I can understand how a misunderstanding could have occurred. But I hope it is clear that to call the Orthodox view "Donatist" is very inaccurate.

As for "chapter and verse" citations of the Scriptures and the Fathers confirming that Catholic sacraments are graceless, such a request strikes me as Protestant. :p

Seriously, though, I don't think the issue is that simple. You cannot just cite one or two things to confirm or deny something. This is theology, not proof-texting. Seraphim Reeves, if I'm not mistaken, has explained the idea of how the strict Orthodox view would have it that Catholic sacraments are graceless someplace on this forum, maybe even in this thread. Perhaps he or someone else can direct you to that, or he can summarise the idea. Elsewhere, Anastasios has summarised this idea; if you haven't already seen it, private message me and I will direct you to the appropriate link.

Simply put (and I hope I am getting this right), the Orthodox Church is conscious of the fact that it is the true Church, the Body of Christ, and maintains that communion with it is necessary in order to be in the true Church, the Body of Christ. If a group is not in communion with the Orthodox Church (the true Church, the Body of Christ), then the "validity" of the sacraments of such a group is doubtful at best. The same goes for a group that once was in communion with it, but broke away (such would be the case with the Roman Catholic Church, according to the Orthodox). You will find Orthodox who deny the validity of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church; you will find other Orthodox who will think that Catholic sacraments are valid (I am one of these). But the Orthodox Church officially does not dogmatise on this; we know where the true faith and the true sacraments definitely are, so we don't need to worry so much about where they might be: if you are in any doubt, you're welcome to join us!

At any rate, I think an in-depth look at this issue, either privately through the study of certain books, or even a thread discussing this notion, could be helpful.

I think such might also serve to show that the Roman Catholic Church has evolved in its view of the Orthodox. The RCC now says that the Orthodox are a sister Church, although separated, that the Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches, although not having the fulness of the faith by being in communion with Rome (I hope I got that right, it's a pretty short summary of the Catholic view, and it's been a while since I studied the pertinent documents). Provided that the quoted texts have not been doctored to support the views of the website owner*, I think

http://www.romancatholicism.org/schism.html

is instructive in that it shows that the official Roman Catholic position, as enunciated by various Popes over the centuries, has been awfully similar in some ways to the way the strict Orthodox perspective views Rome and others outside it. It seems that the current view pushed by the Vatican is relatively young compared to the older view represented here, and so (if all this is true) I don't think it's fair for Catholics to think that the Orthodox are out to get them, and that they are being mean for not recognising their sacraments; once upon a time, Catholics said similar things about the Orthodox. Then the Catholics changed. But hasn't it always been like that? :p

God bless you.

*I don't agree with everything the website owner says, obviously. But I think the page I linked to is interesting, if not doctored up.

Hi! Thanks for the response. But....where do either these Scriptures or these patristic passages state plainly and unequivocally that baptism must be by immersion?

I must be missing it.

For that matter, where does any ecumenical council state that baptism must be by immersion? Where does any ecumenical council state that baptism is graceless when it is done by aspersion? Where does any Early Father state this--plainly and unequivocally, I mean? (References to coming up out of the water are ambiguous at best. I'm looking for a clear patristic statement to the effect of: "Baptism by aspersion is graceless." I think you'll be hard-pressed to find such a statement! )

Your use of Scripture and patristics reminds me of the way my Baptist friends handle the Bible. They say baptism must be by immersion of adults, because the Bible doesn't explicitly mention aspersion of infants. Forgive me, but this sort of thing seems a rather fundamentalistic way of approaching the Bible and the Fathers. And as such, it's very problematic.

Personally, I think immersion conveys the symbolism of baptism better than aspersion does. But water is water, and that plus the Trinitarian formula constitute the "esse" of baptism. Jesus commanded us to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but He never said how far under the water the baptisand has to go. IOW, I think He allowed some flexibility in praxis. Else He would have been more explicit about the immersion-vs.-aspersion thing!

In sum: I think you are splitting hairs. This is precisely the sort of thing that convinces me I could never be EO. There are many other things as well, but this "dead letter" approach to Scripture and Tradition is certainly one significant factor.

From time to tome, an Orthodox person comes onto a Catholic board and tells us Papists we are all hell-bound heretics because our priests don't have beards and our Communion Bread is flat. I just think that's silly. Matthew 25: 31-46 says nothing about beards.

It doesn't say anything about having to baptize by immersion either.

Blessings,

ZT

Ah yes ZT,
And this is where Tradition steps in and our views are different.But did you not ask for the Scriptual referance and how the Orthodox looked at it?So how is this remind you of a Baptist?And I thought that this is an orthodox in communion with Rome board?Im far from anti Catholic.I think that you might be interested in the views of the Byzantine Catholics and how close to Orthodoxy they are.Ive seen many Latin Catholics storm out of Byzantine Churches.And this is where we can return to the true meaning of ecumenism and look to the future with hope.20 years ago did the laiety have this dialog between the churches?No, and now we do.I believe that all these problems will be solved from the ground up. Poor sinner Chad

Now, allow me to let you know where I stand with regard to the Eastern Churches:

-I am notorious among my Latin friends for singing Melkite chant all the time.

-When I attend the Divine Liturgy, you wouldn't be able to distinguish me from any of the native Byzantines, since I cross myself the right way and sing everything.

-I have defended Eastern traditions, in arguments against other traditional westerners--things like married priests, non-kneeling on Sundays, lack of silence during the DL, etc. I do not think that they are "superior" to western practices as such, but that they are what is right for the East.


Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is unfair to accuse me of dissing Eastern Christianity.


Alex noted that Chad and Seraphim Reeves are stating what they sincerely believe, and are not trying to be nasty. I agree. Seraphim and Chad both seem to be devout Christians who desire to discuss the Faith. I would ask that the same benefit-of-the-doubt be extended to us westerners, however. On another thread, Seraphim himself supported me in this request. It is impossible for two parties to discuss issues if one party's views are considered "out-of-bounds" or "against the rules".

Regarding Donatism: Mor Ephrem is correct about the nature of Donatism; nevertheless re-baptism was the hallmark of the Donatists in North Africa during the 4th century. It seems that the "strict" Orthodox here are advocating re-baptism, despite the Canons of their Churches (Constantinople and Moscow, which have already been brought up). Thus,I can see what ZT was referring to when she said "Donatism".


I do not think that bigotry is necessarily involved here. Of course, I do think that error IS involved.

God bless all.

LatinTrad

The council of Arles[France; A.D. 314] contains this canon on rebaptism:

Canon 8. Regarding the Africans, who use their own law to rebaptize, it has been enacted that if anybody comes to the church from heresy, let them ask him the Creed: and if they see that he has been baptized in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let the hand be imposed upon him only, that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if the person questioned does not answer with this Trinity, let him be baptized. [Mansi 2: 472]

As for St. Cyprian[A.D. 200-258] and Pope St. Stephen[A.D. 254-257]

Cyprian�s position, that those baptized by heretics who then came into the Church needed to be baptized again, was very common in the Eastern and African Church at the time. Pope Stephen held to the traditional practice of the Church which considered these baptisms as being valid and the imposition of hands should be used for acceptance into the Church. Cyprian recognized that his own position on rebaptism was not based on the traditional practice of the Church, yet believed that the custom of the Church was simply wrong and should yield to reason. Cyprian and Stephen were going opposite directions on a one way street. Pope Stephen resisted Cyprian and stood fast on the practice of the Church stating, �nihil innovetur�-- �let there be no innovation!�.

The council of Carthage [A.D. 256], under Cyprian, ruled in favor of �rebaptism� and wrote to Pope Stephen:

... we force no one, nor do we lay down a law, since each prelate has the right of his free will in the administration of the Church, and will give an account of his actions to the Lord. [Ep. 72. CSEL 3: 778]

Cyprian believed that the council of Carthage had every right to rule as it did in this matter. He also believed that he had no right to enforce his view on any other bishop and vice versa. St. Jerome spoke on the matter:

Blessed Cyprian... condemning the baptism of heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and the twenty-second from Blessed Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually the very same bishops, who had laid down with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, published a new decree. [Contra Lucif., 23. PL 23: 186]

Ultimately, and in the end, Pope Stephen and the Tradition of the Church prevailed over St. Cyprian and his council of 256. The Latin Father Vincent of Lerins sums it up this way:

Agrippinus [Cyprian] of venerable memory, who was once bishop of Carthage, first of all mortals, against the divine Canon, against the rule of the Universal Church, against the opinion of all his fellow priests, against the custom and institutions of the elders, thought that rebaptism ought to be practiced... Then Pope Stephen of blessed memory, bishop of the Apostolic See, together indeed with the rest of his colleagues but more than the others, resisted, thinking it fitting, I think, that he exceed all the rest as much by the devotion of his faith as he did by the authority of his place. What happened in the end? What force was there in the African Council or decree? By God�s gift, none. Everything, as if a dream or a story, was trampled upon as if useless, abolished, superseded... [PL 50: 645-6]


Regards,
ruel

ps...[St. Augustine wrote:] 'as there is in the catholic church something that is not catholic [i.e., unholiness in some of its members], so there may be something that is catholic outside the catholic church.' [Ep. 185.38, 185.42] . . .

Dear ZT,

I don't think it's a matter of the Orthodox saying that immersion is the only valid form of baptism *plainly and unequivocally*. It is clear enough that the Orthodox allow infusion (pouring) and even aspersion in emergency circumstances. The issue is that what is essentially a method of baptism that is used in emergency circumstances has become the norm. Elsewhere, it was explained that, for the Orthodox, the symbolism of the sacrament is considered to be very important. So when there is not an emergency situation, that symbolism should be preserved in the rite as a matter of obligation; it should be considered the normal, default way of baptising, and the concessions allowed in an emergency shouldn't compromise that.

This is much a better website:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm

Thanks for the link. I actually saw this a couple of days ago. While it explains Unam Sanctam a bit, there are still some questions remaining. Even so, if the quotes on the other site are accurate, and have not been edited for polemical purposes, one can ignore Unam Sanctam and there still seem to be enough quotes from various papal documents and statements to raise questions, at least for me.

Would you cite the relevant canons from Constantinople and Moscow, LT? I think I saw the Moscow one briefly alluded to on the first page of this thread, but there was information in the same post to counter that. Perhaps you have another Moscow canon in mind? I'd like to see them.

Dear Latin Trad and Zoe Theodora,

I see where you are both coming from and I appreciate your feelings!

Again, the Administrator (I thank him for his kind words to me - he hasn't said anything nice about me for a while, you know . . . ) is quite right in affirming the correctness of what I said . . . that doesn't sound right, does it?

In other, less egotistical, wording, what we consider to be an attack on our Churches by Orthodox here is not necessarily so.

Yes, the Orthodox do believe we are graceless heretics - for the most part.

But even this isn't an emphatic statement (did you two know that Teen Logo, for all his holier-than-thou Catholicism is still a Methodist? Can you speak to him and get him to become a Catholic finally? He is a walking danger to Catholic-Protestant relations otherwise . . . ).

The Orthodox say they simply don't know what exists in terms of grace beyond the true Church which, in this context, is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

This doesn't prevent them from venerating Catholic saints etc. on an individual basis.

But, in their theological books, there is no such thing as an "almost Orthodox." One either is or isn't.

In terms of vocabulary, the Administrator was saying more than, as you know, using Latin theological terminology.

A priori's are also involved and there are marked differences in Eastern and Western ecclesiologies.

If I do cut slack to Orthodox, it is because they are my brothers and sisters in so very many ways and because I like to think I've come to understand them better over the years.

When I react sharply to my Latin brothers and sisters in this respect, it is because I feel protective of them because I do love them.

There was a time in my life, I am sad to say, when I only referred to Orthodox as "schismatics."

I don't mind it when they refer to me as a "heretic."

And ultimately, there really are aspects to my thinking that could be deemed heretical by Catholic standards.

So no one's perfect!

But I think Teen of the Incarnate Logos should become your number one conversion project.

He's really getting on my nerves in that respect and I think you should get on his case immediately

Alex

I apologize for the "bigotry" references. Sometimes I get a tad carried away.

However, I would agree with LatinTrad in characterizing Seraphim's views as "in error."

More later...am at work now.

Please pray for this sinner who also prays for you....

ZT

djs,

I don't have much time, so I'll have to get back to you.

Alex,

I must say that, although we disagree on many things, your ability to humble yourself and to, in the end, make others feel at ease, is a much-coveted and God-given trait.

And I'm working on the conversion thing!

Logos Teen

Pax Christi!
I am looking for the relevant canons from the 1484 Synod of Constantinople and the 1667? Synod of Moscow but I couldn't find one on-line. But i found some interesting links:

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html#2_bottom