Calling All Orthodox!

[josie_L]

Disagree all you want. We’re use to it. We get the same thing from Protestants. Your disagreement, however, has no bearing on truth. The Church is a living institution. One would expect, over the centuries, that we might come to a better understanding of the Apostolic faith as the Church matures. Explaining and defining that faith is not speculation and is not based upon the “elevation of the human intellect”. It is based upon the exercise of the authority given to the Church by Christ himself, confidence in His promises, and the faith given to us by the Apostles.

This is why threads like these are for the most part useless, i.e., we’re better off expending our energies praying for unity.

 

[SteveVH]

This is why threads like these are for the most part useless, i.e., we’re better off expending our energies praying for unity.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[dzheremi]

Disagree all you want. We’re use to it. We get the same thing from Protestants.

Uh huh. Orthodox are just Protestants in fancier dress. Sure thing, buddy.

Your disagreement, however, has no bearing on truth.

We could (and do, sometimes) say the same thing regarding the stances that your church take that differ from Orthodoxy, but I don’t really think this is a very good way to proceed, as things that anyone can claim are not really interesting to discuss. I’m not interested in playing “he said, she said” with anyone’s church, be it yours or the Byzantines’ or any other. You have your beliefs, which I disagree with, and vice-versa. We’re not going to argue one another into the other’s church, and at least for me that’s not why I’m here.

The Church is a living institution.

Amen.

One would expect, over the centuries, that we might come to a better understanding of the Apostolic faith as the Church matures.

Why? Why would one expect that? From where I’m sitting, the Church finds itself in new circumstances from time to time which require us to be able to articulate the same faith we’ve always had to a new audience (e.g., translating patristic and liturgical texts, learning new languages of new lands, rediscovering saints and adapting their stories to new audiences, etc.), but a “better understanding”? Who on earth would have a better understanding of the apostolic faith than those who sat at the feet of the very apostles of our Lord, were instructed by them in the apostolic faith, and passed that direct experience on to the next generation? There is no “better understanding” to be had, and that is the understanding that we cling to and bring to whatever new situation we find ourselves in.

Explaining and defining that faith is not speculation and is not based upon the “elevation of the human intellect”. It is based upon the exercise of the authority given to the Church by Christ himself, confidence in His promises, and the faith given to us by the Apostles.

It is absolutely speculation based on human intellectual reasoning capacity. I chose the Thomas Aquinas quote for a reason – though he is a big name in Catholic philosophical apologetics, even he eventually came to the conclusion that all of his musings were nothing next to revealed wisdom of God. I don’t think it’s wrong to extend that to others of his line, and down on to our time when Catholics claim that this or that innovation is an in fact “better understanding”. Your greatest philosopher-saint came to the opposite conclusion after a lifetime of expounding exactly that understanding, and again I think he was on to something at that point, rather than before. You, I, the Roman Pope, the Coptic Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, and everybody else is not smarter or more enlightened than the apostles and the fathers. No. “Exercise of authority” aside (authority can be wrong), we’re talking about two fundamentally different approaches to the faith. Yours admits developments over time in the name of gaining a “better understanding” somehow; mine does not, in the name of preserving the apostolic standard which is our watchword in every instance. For an example of how this works in practical terms, I can say without diminishing anyone that St. Basil is greater than my priest, but even then so long as my priest teaches what St. Basil taught, and not some “evolved” understanding of it, we need not entertain any dichotomy between the present and the past. The apostolic faith is timeless in this way, and we live in worship of the Holy Trinity which guides us along the same path set forth by the apostles, the Fathers of the desert and all others who have rightly guided the Church throughout all ages – past, present, and future.

 

[GKC]

Truer words were never spoken.

Speaking as an outside observer, I’d agree.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

It is a wildly incorrect and even slightly presumptuous statement to say that St. Cyprian’s position was ‘rejected by the Church.’ It was rejected in the West, yes, but one finds a whole slew of Eastern fathers and canons which continued to reject heretical baptisms except out of economy, far after the time when Pope St. Stephen’s views gained acceptance in the West.

Pope St. Stephen’s view was already ancient tradition by the time St. Cyprian and he crossed hairs, therefore the view expounded at the council of Arles (in which the whole of the West was involved) was a reconfirmation of that Tradition (St. Cyprian was in error due to his predecessor, Agrippinus). The views confirmed at Arles were then reiterated at the ecumenical council of Nicea (canon 8). St. Augustine’s approach to the whole debacle between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian was explained thusly:

Chapter 7

1. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on mere human arguments—since there is so much obscurity in this question, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of Donatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even our fathers, the bishops, whose hearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt among themselves, saving always the peace of the Church, that the several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the whole world:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=735464

Furthermore,

The Church of Africa was not equally fortunate in finding the solution for the difficult problem of the worth of Baptism as administered outside the Church. The earliest synod (about 220) took the matter up and declared such Baptism invalid, and this decision was reaffirmed in synods held in 255-256 under St. Cyprian. All converts should be re-baptized. St. Cyprian strove to press the African views on Rome, but Pope Stephen menaced excommunication. At the celebrated September Synod of 256 the eighty-seven bishops assembled from the three provinces still maintained their attitude against Baptism by heretics. This error was finally retracted in the Synod (345-348) under Gratus.

newadvent.org/cathen/01199a.htm

It’s worthy to note that the view St. Cyprian of Carthage held concerning baptism outside the Church (with regard to the Novatians/Cathari) was in a similar way espoused by the Donatists (a heresy rooted in Africa).

Indeed, because from our perspective, those baptized outside of the Church are in need either of baptism or at the very least, having their formerly inefficacious baptism perfected by the grace of the Church.

No, it does not mean that their baptism was inefficacious, canon 7 of the second council of Constantinople:

Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council also addresses the matter explicitly:

“Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according tot he following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Catharia or Aristeri, 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…, Montanists, Phrygians, and Sabellians, and other heresies…all these…we receive as heathen…”

How do you interpret this canon?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Pope St. Stephen’s view was already ancient tradition by the time St. Cyprian and he crossed hairs, therefore the view expounded at the council of Arles (in which the whole of the West was involved) was a reconfirmation of that Tradition (St. Cyprian was in error due to his predecessor, Agrippinus). The views confirmed at Arles were then reiterated at the ecumenical council of Nicea (canon 8). St. Augustine’s approach to the whole debacle between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian was explained thusly:

Furthermore,

It’s worthy to note that the view St. Cyprian of Carthage held concerning baptism outside the Church (with regard to the Novatians/Cathari) was in a similar way espoused by the Donatists (a heresy rooted in Africa).

I reiterate my initial point: “It is a wildly incorrect and even slightly presumptuous statement to say that St. Cyprian’s position was ‘rejected by the Church.’ It was rejected in the West, yes, but one finds a whole slew of Eastern fathers and canons which continued to reject heretical baptisms except out of economy, far after the time when Pope St. Stephen’s views gained acceptance in the West.” These quotes do nothing to demonstrate against what I wrote.

No, it does not mean that their baptism was inefficacious, canon 7 of the second council of Constantinople:

How do you interpret this canon?

I interpret that canon in light of the totality of Canon Law, and in light of how canonists interpreted these canons. Among the most relevant are canons 1 of St. Basil, and canons 46 and 47 of the Apostolic Canons. The canonists, Zonaras, Blastares and Harmenopoulos all treat these canons in a similar way, so it should only be necessary to touch on a few of them.

Zonaras understands that the baptisms of schismatics such as the Novatians were accepted by oikonomia, commenting that oikonomia was used because the use of akriveia would would have caused the Novatians to hesitate to come into the Church. But with regards to others, we are obliged, according to St. Basil, to reject their baptisms outright, even if they recognize our baptisms, and to apply akriveia (that is, to baptize them). However, according to Zonaras in his interpretations of other canons, if another rule be laid down allowing for the use of oikonomia, that rule should be followed, as it supersedes the earlier rule of akriveia.

Blastares similarly comments on the first Canon of St. Basil, remarking that originally according to this rule of St. Basil, all baptisms of those who differed in faith were rejected, while the baptisms of schismatics were to be accepted, even though the ancient authorities (according to St. Basil) rejected the baptisms of schismatics as inefficacious. Novatians were to be accepted by oikonomia (the same analysis as Zonaras).

The basic implication of these canons is that these baptisms have no efficacy in themselves. They are rather given a potentiality for efficacy if the Church recognizes them as being acceptable for reception by oikonomia, by which they are filled and completed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, but the medieval teaching on Purgatory rather clearly linked it to fulfilling a certain temporal punishment due for sins. The modern emphasis on a therapeutic understanding of purgatory introduces some rather interesting questions about the practice of applying indulgences to the dead per modum suffragii. If purgatory should be understood as therapeutic in nature, even if it be painful, why should it at all desirable to cut short the time spent there by the dead by applying a plenary or partial indulgence to them?

Because it’s painful, i.e., have you ever seen someone go through extreme physical therapy, there is much pain involved, so if you knew there was a way to reduce that pain wouldn’t you use it or do something to diminish it, especially if it was someone you loved? Moreover, do you not pray for the dead, according to Catholic teaching, praying for the dead can help relieve the suffering of the souls being purified in purgatory?

Are you aware that the Greeks also issued indulgences or as they called them “absolution certificates”?

One of the manifestations of such a metamorphosis was the introduction of the sale of Christian indulgences into the practice of the Greek Church.[1]. These were real indulgences: certificates which absolved from sins, which anyone could obtain, often for a specified sum of money. The absolution granted by these papers, according to Christos Yannaras, had no connection with any participation of the faithful in the Mystery of Penance, nor in the Mystery of the Eucharist.[2]

It’s hard to determine when indulgences began to be used among Greeks living under the Turkish yoke. They were widespread enough in the 16th-century. At the beginning of the 18th century, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dositheus Notaras, writes of indulgences as of a well-known and ancient tradition. “We have the custom and ancient tradition, which is known to all, that the most holy Patriarchs would give the people of the Church a certificate for the absolution of their sins.(Sinhorohartion)”.[3]

The practice of issuing indulgences, having existed at first unofficially, got its official confirmation at the Constantinople Council of 1727.

pravoslavie.ru/english/7185.htm

And if it truly is possible for the dead to be healed instantaneously, (as the existence of the plenary indulgence implies) why should it be necessary for a merciful God to subject them to this painful process of purgation, when the means exist to cleanse them instantaneously? It seems to me still that the retributive model of purgatory is implied by the practice of the Roman Church on this matter.

First off, the dead are not healed instantaneously, i.e., a plenary indulgence does not imply this, here is a definition of a plenary indulgence and how it can be applied:

In order to obtain a plenary indulgence (only one per day), the faithful must, in addition to being in the state of grace:

– have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin; — have sacramentally confessed their sins; — receive the Holy Eucharist (it is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required); – pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.

It would be pretty difficult to obtain a plenary indulgence without already having expiated your sins and/or re-orienting your will to God’s to such a degree that you have detached yourself from sin.

Indulgenced Acts for the Poor Souls A partial indulgence can be obtained by devoutly visiting a cemetery and praying for the departed, even if the prayer is only mental. One can gain a plenary indulgence visiting a cemetery each day between November 1 and November 8. These indulgences are applicable only to the Souls in Purgatory.

A plenary indulgence, again applicable only the Souls in Purgatory, is also granted when the faithful piously visit a church or a public oratory on November 2. In visiting the church or oratory, it is required, that one Our Father and the Creed be recited.

catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=1178

Does this sound like a plenary indulgence instantaneously frees the dead from purgatory?

for the benefit and healing of the penitent, which is why the confessor is invested with the power of oikonomia to adjust the severity of the penance according to the needs of the penitent. They do not exist in order to punish sins which have just been forgiven by confession.

To understand the practice of indulgences:

t is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=1178

to be continued. . . .

 

[josie_L]

This is why, for example, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain in his exomologetarion instructs the confessor to assign the penance according to the most grave sin committed. Were the intention of the penance to fulfill a necessary temporal punishment for sins forgiven, it should make sense instead that the penance would instead be cumulative.

Are you aware that St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain did not oppose indulgences/ absolution certificates:

It’s remarkable that even such a theologian and expert on the canonical tradition of the Church as Venerable Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain not only did not oppose, but participated in the practice of indulgences. Thus, in his letter to Paisius, Bishop of Stagonas, who at that time was living in Constantinople, dated April 1806, he asks him to get an Absolution Certificate at the Patriarchate for a “living” monastic, also named Nicodemus, and send it to him. He promises him that he would send the money necessary to purchase the certificate as soon as he knows how much it would cost.[8]

pravoslavie.ru/english/7185.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

Because it’s painful, i.e., have you ever seen someone go through extreme physical therapy, there is much pain involved, so if you knew there was a way to reduce that pain wouldn’t you use it or do something to diminish it, especially if it was someone you loved? Moreover, do you not pray for the dead, according to Catholic teaching, praying for the dead can help relieve the suffering of the souls being purified in purgatory?

That is the question though, if it is possible for the healing to be accomplished without the need for pain (via a plenary indulgence, which releases the sinner of all temporal punishment he is bound to), why does the Merciful God subject people to such a painful manner of cleansing, when another manner exists?

Are you aware that the Greeks also issued indulgences or as they called them “absolution certificates”?

No, they did not, because as the article you linked states, the absolution certificates were attached to the absolution of sins, something which an indulgence clearly does not do (in fact, Roman apologists are very adamant that indulgences do not absolve one of sins; and should you doubt me, see the Catholic Encyclopedia which states plainly, “It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven.”) Some certificates were certificates noting the lifting of an excommunication or other ecclesiastical penalty placed on a person. Others acted as a non-sacramental absolution from sins (justified, I am sure, by the power of the bishop to bind and loose), but none of them were meant to draw on the treasury of merits to remit the temporal penalty of sins incurred by a person. That concept does not exist in Orthodox theology, and the two are therefore not interchangeable concepts.

First off, the dead are not healed instantaneously, i.e., a plenary indulgence does not imply this, here is a definition of a plenary indulgence and how it can be applied:

So what does it mean then? If one who has died has a plenary indulgence (which removes the entire burden of temporal punishment due) applied to them per modum suffragii, am I to believe that God does not honor the plenary indulgence? Why attempt to gain indulgences for the dead then?

It would be pretty difficult to obtain a plenary indulgence without already having expiated your sins and/or re-orienting your will to God’s to such a degree that you have detached yourself from sin.

But the difficulty of obtaining a plenary indulgence has nothing to do with what a plenary indulgence is claimed to do.

Does this sound like a plenary indulgence instantaneously frees the dead from purgatory?

From the very link, I quote An indulgence can either be partial or plenary. It is partial if it removes only part of the temporal punishment due to sin, or plenary if it removes all punishment. If a plenary indulgence removes all temporal punishment due to sin, then if you assert that applying a plenary indulgence does not heal a soul in purgatory, in order to be consistent you must either believe that believe that God does not honor the practice of applying plenary indulgences to the dead per modum suffragii, or that the punishment of purgatory does not have a primarily therapeutic purpose, but that its primary purpose is indeed retributive. Barring questioning the practice of giving indulgences to the dead, one cannot believe on one hand that the punishment of purgatory has as its end the healing of the sinner, and on the other hand that a plenary indulgence (which remits the entire temporal punishment due for sins) applied to a soul in purgatory does not heal the soul in full.

To understand the practice of indulgences:

I understand that this is a more modern understanding of purgatory. But I simply do not see how this understanding is supported by praxis.

Are you aware that St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain did not oppose indulgences/ absolution certificates:

As noted above, the two are not equivalent. St. Nikodemos as of the Holy Mountain, as the Greeks of his time, did not have a theology of a temporal punishment due for sins in the first place.

 

[Peter_J]

I find the Catholic attitude toward Orthodox is often the same as the Anglican attitude toward Catholics (I speak as a former Anglican).

I can see the parallel you’re drawing; but, of course, from our p.o.v., we rightly say that Anglicans do not have valid orders, whereas you Orthodox wrongly say that we Catholics do not valid* orders. (* I’m oversimplifying by saying “valid” but you get the idea.)

 

[josie_L]

I reiterate my initial point: “It is a wildly incorrect and even slightly presumptuous statement to say that St. Cyprian’s position was ‘rejected by the Church.’ It was rejected in the West, yes, but one finds a whole slew of Eastern fathers and canons which continued to reject heretical baptisms except out of economy, far after the time when Pope St. Stephen’s views gained acceptance in the West.” These quotes do nothing to demonstrate against what I wrote.

Pope St. Stephen did not agree with re-baptizing heretics if they were baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as were the Novatians/Catharis, therefore, St. Cyprian was wrong in wanting to re-baptize them (and that was the crux of the matter), i.e., canon 8 of the council of Arles as well as canon 8 of Nicea (ecumenical council), and the council of 345-348 under Gratus ( which retracted the errors of the synod of 256 in Carthage under St. Cyprian) all attest that Pope St. Stephen was right. Not all heretics were admitted into the Church via re-baptism, and some heretical baptisms were deemed acceptable by the Church whether you’d like to admit this or not (the Novatians are a case in point), i.e., Pope St. Stephen’s view prevailed at Nicea. Moreover, would this be in your estimation an example of oikonomia:

“If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, he shall have a hand laid on him only that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if in answer to their questioning he shall not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized.”

The baptism is deemed acceptable but full entry into the Church would require the laying of hands to receive the Holy Ghost.

I interpret that canon in light of the totality of Canon Law, and in light of how canonists interpreted these canons. Among the most relevant are canons 1 of St. Basil, and canons 46 and 47 of the Apostolic Canons. The canonists, Zonaras, Blastares and Harmenopoulos all treat these canons in a similar way, so it should only be necessary to touch on a few of them.

No you don’t, you’ve embraced a part of the canon law, the part that suits your Eastern mentality.

The basic implication of these canons is that these baptisms have no efficacy in themselves. They are rather given a potentiality for efficacy if the Church recognizes them as being acceptable for reception by oikonomia, by which they are filled and completed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Not all the Orthodox share your opinion on heretical baptisms and/or the efficacy of sacraments outside the (Orthodox) Church, i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church have throughout their history accepted our sacraments as grace-filled, even to this present day.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No you don’t, you’ve embraced a part of the canon law, the part that suits your Eastern mentality.

I would hardly think that the canons of St. Basil, which were implicitly approved by the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, and which were explicitly approved by Trullo can be passed off simply as “suiting my Eastern mentality” (whatever such a nonsensical phrase like that is supposed to mean). Besides, I could make the very same criticism of you, that you are simply quoting canons which suit your “Western mentality” (whatever, again, that should mean). Frankly, such an argument is both needlessly antagonistic and unhelpful

But even so, I do not reject those western canons (perhaps you have misread me) which received some schismatics and heretics without baptism, because as St. Basil remarks in his first canon (and as the canonists also remark in their own interpretations of this canon), this is a permissible application of oikonomia, so long as there is no formal defect in baptisms performed outside of the Church. On the other hand, you clearly do reject these Eastern canons as being erroneous. So tell me then, whose approach is truly more Catholic, the approach which accuses numerous fathers of gross misconduct and blasphemy (for rebaptizing those validly baptized, a crime so horrid that the Apostolic Canons remark that any clergyman who does such a thing should be deposed), or the approach which finds concord between the fathers?

Not all the Orthodox share your opinion on heretical baptisms and/or the efficacy of sacraments outside the (Orthodox) Church, i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church have throughout their history accepted our sacraments as grace-filled, even to this present day.

That is merely an interpretation (erroneous in my opinion) of the history of the Russians, one which forgets that in the 1620, under the pressure of the Unia, they declared that all Westerners should be received by baptism (a decision which would not be changed until 1667). It also overlooks key figures like Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky and others who accepted the fundamental premise that sacraments outside of the Church are not grace filled. In fact, when one observes the arguments used at the 1667 synod for accepting the baptisms of Roman Catholics, one can see that the principle of oikonomia is implicitly at work, as Protestants continued to be received by baptism (even though their baptisms were formally the same as those of the “Latins”) until 1718, when the Ecumenical Patriarch was asked to give counsel and advised that Lutherans should be chrismated.

For another view on the synods of 1620 and 1667, besides that of the completely non-binding Orthodox-Roman Catholic Theological Consultation which you have quoted before, see Fr. Dragas’ paper on the reception of Roman Catholic converts myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html

 

[josie_L]

I would hardly think that the canons of St. Basil, which were implicitly approved by the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, and which were explicitly approved by Trullo can be passed off simply as “suiting my Eastern mentality” (whatever such a nonsensical phrase like that is supposed to mean). Besides, I could make the very same criticism of you, that you are simply quoting canons which suit your “Western mentality” (whatever, again, that should mean). Frankly, such an argument is both needlessly antagonistic and unhelpful

I find St. Cyprian’s view to be erroneous (all heretics without exception must be re-baptized), along with the canons produced at the council of Carthage of 255-256, i.e., this “tradition” was not the tradition of the universal Church as Pope St. Stephen’s himself declared, and it was his/apostolic view which prevailed at Nicea. Anyone that reiterates what was declared at Carthage as orthodox is denying the truths of the universal Church.

But even so, I do not reject those western canons (perhaps you have misread me) which received some schismatics and heretics without baptism, because as St. Basil remarks in his first canon (and as the canonists also remark in their own interpretations of this canon), this is a permissible application of oikonomia, so long as there is no formal defect in baptisms performed outside of the Church. On the other hand, you clearly do reject these Eastern canons as being erroneous.

I am denying the fact that there is no such thing as a valid baptism outside of the Church (which is the view St. Cyprian and the African Church took at the council of Carthage 255-256).

So tell me then, whose approach is truly more Catholic, the approach which accuses numerous fathers of gross misconduct and blasphemy (for rebaptizing those validly baptized, a crime so horrid that the Apostolic Canons remark that any clergyman who does such a thing should be deposed), or the approach which finds concord between the fathers?

I think it is your interpretation of the fathers that I have trouble with, not the fathers themselves, i.e., the only person I take issue with is St. Cyprian and those that followed him.

That is merely an interpretation (erroneous in my opinion) of the history of the Russians, one which forgets that in the 1620, under the pressure of the Unia, they declared that all Westerners should be received by baptism (a decision which would not be changed until 1667). It also overlooks key figures like Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky and others who accepted the fundamental premise that sacraments outside of the Church are not grace filled. In fact, when one observes the arguments used at the 1667 synod for accepting the baptisms of Roman Catholics, one can see that the principle of oikonomia is implicitly at work, as Protestants continued to be received by baptism (even though their baptisms were formally the same as those of the “Latins”) until 1718, when the Ecumenical Patriarch was asked to give counsel and advised that Lutherans should be chrismated.

That was under Metropolitan Philaret (although he later redacted his views), i.e., it was the one and only time that Russia declared Catholics should be received by baptism. Otherwise, Catholic sacraments were considered grace-filled for the entirety of Russian history, in fact, Metropolitan Hilarion declared as much not so long ago.

From Vertograd Orthodox Journal, Newsletter No. 76, Oct. 21, 2009 (via the Irenikon listserv):

“To all intent and purposes, mutual recognition of each others Mysteries already exists between us. We do not have communion in the Mysteries, but we do recognize each others Mysteries”, declared Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeev) on the air during a broadcast of the program “The Church and the World” on the television channel “Russia”, on October 17th (video and text, vera.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=237432).

“If a Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy, we receive him as a priest, and we do not re-ordain him. And that means that, de facto, we recognize the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church”, explained Archbishop Hilarion.

Responding to the question of whether Roman Catholics can receive Communion from the Orthodox, or Orthodox Christians from the Roman Catholics, Archbishop Hilarion said that such giving of Communion should not take place, inasmuch as “eucharistic communion has been broken” between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. But, at the same time, he made clear that in some cases such Communion is possible: “Exceptional cases occur, when, for example, a Roman Catholic is dying in some town where there is no Roman Catholic priest at all in the vicinity. So he asks an Orthodox priest to come. Then in such a case, I think, the Orthodox priest should go and give Communion to that person.”

eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/…ic-sacraments

to be continued. . .

 

[josie_L]

For another view on the synods of 1620 and 1667, besides that of the completely non-binding Orthodox-Roman Catholic Theological Consultation which you have quoted before, see Fr. Dragas’ paper on the reception of Roman Catholic converts myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html

I have here from a Russian source how Roman Catholics are to be received:

As we noted above, the ultimate legislation which prohibited the re-baptism of Latins upon their conversion to Orthodoxy, was the decree of the Great Moscow Council of 1667,

Chapter 6.

Non-Orthodox persons are received by one of three rites:

The third rite - repentance of previous errors, repudiation of those errors and a confession of the Orthodox Faith. To be used for persons converting from the Roman Catholic faith and Armenians, provided that the former have received confirmation from their bishop, and that the latter were chrismated by their clergy. If they have not been confirmed or if there is any doubt as to whether they were confirmed, they should be anointed with the Holy Chrism.

The second rite - repentance, repudiation of heresies, confession of the Orthodox Faith and chrismation. To be used for the reception of Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans (Episcopalians). Lutherans and Calvinists, because they do not have the sacrament of chrismation and do not have a clergy with apostolic succession. Anglicans, because the apostolic succession of their clergy is questionable, as was noted by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow.

The first rite - baptism and chrismation. To be used for the reception of pagans, Jews, Muslims and those sectarians that do not believe in the Holy Trinity nor perform a baptism by triple immersion in the name of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

These were the basic laws of the Russian Church with respect to the reception of non-Orthodox into Orthodoxy.[74]

Archpriest Nikolsky summarizes the subject of the reception of non-Orthodox as follows:

“The sacrament of chrismation, separate from baptism, is performed upon the heterodox uniting with the Orthodox Church, but only upon those who, having received proper baptism, have not been chrismated, such as Lutherans, Calvinists and those Roman Catholics and Armenians who were not anointed with Chrism (not confirmed).”[77]

Roman Catholic clergy, as noted above, are received in their order, following their repentance, repudiation of heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. The actual rite for the reception of a Roman Catholic priest into Orthodoxy was compiled by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow.[78]

holy-trinity.org/ecclesio…ption-ch2.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would hardly think that the canons of St. Basil, which were implicitly approved by the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, and which were explicitly approved by Trullo can be passed off simply as “suiting my Eastern mentality”

First of all we are in 250 AD not 100 years later with Basil. You’ll need to prove your point about Baptism and the Primacy from 250-258. Obviously its impossible.

Trullio is here…

newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

"In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. "

An inimical attitude, sounds familiar.

I reiterate my initial point: “It is a wildly incorrect and even slightly presumptuous statement to say that St. Cyprian’s position was ‘rejected by the Church.’ It was rejected in the West, yes, but one finds a whole slew of Eastern fathers and canons which continued to reject heretical baptisms except out of economy, far after the time when Pope St. Stephen’s views gained acceptance in the West.” These quotes do nothing to demonstrate against what I wrote.

I’m still waiting for the “slew of Eastern Church’s” from Cyprians period. Thats the only wildly inaccurate statement. That’s what in fact we are talking about. And yes Cyprians view was “rejected” by "THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH and the same one of which Cyprian stated in in a letter from 251. All were in Communion what is wildly inaccurate is your understanding of the Primacy from this period. Its the usual low view which is non historic.

“There is one God and one Christ and one Chair founded on Peter by the Word of the Lord.”

The Apostolic Tradition is the same today as its “always” been and a point which Cyprian could not debate since the only evidence to his position was the Synods of Africa and one Treatise on re-baptism from an unknown Bishop of Africa.

So where is the rebaptism in the Apostolic Church pre Cyprian? .

The baptism is deemed acceptable but full entry into the Church would require the laying of hands to receive the Holy Ghost .

This was the misunderstanding, mistake with Cyprian, Firmilian of the Pope. This isn’t even what the Pope was talking about and where all the misunderstanding, assumptions and foolish talk arose from. He was talking penitential rite in the imposition of hands. Firmilian and Cyprian did not get it. And there is no history to coincide with either Cyprian or Firmilian.

No where does Stephan state the imposition of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit. He said “impose on him in penance”

St. Stephen’s view was affirmed at Nicaea.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I find St. Cyprian’s view to be erroneous (all heretics without exception must be re-baptized), along with the canons produced at the council of Carthage of 255-256, i.e., this “tradition” was not the tradition of the universal Church as Pope St. Stephen’s himself declared, and it was his/apostolic view which prevailed at Nicea. Anyone that reiterates what was declared at Carthage as orthodox is denying the truths of the universal Church.

Again, you are repeating an interpretation of events through a very Westernized lens, which doesn’t take into account the evidence from the Eastern fathers, who also rejected the baptisms of heretics. It is often forgotten that the initial solution to the conflict between St. Cyprian and St. Stephen was St. Dionysius’ (of Alexandria), which was that each Church should hold to its own practice. It is true that by the fourth century, the West had largely accepted St. Stephen’s view, but in the East, we find bishops like St. Athanasius and St. Basil rejecting heretical baptisms, with St. Basil citing Ss. Cyprian and Firmilian as ancient authorities on the matter. Indeed, the claim that the view of St. Cyprian was repudiated at Nicaea seems untenable, for St. Basil, despite writing his canons after the decrees of Nicaea, does not believe that the practice of rebaptizing heretics and schismatics is necessarily wrong, only that in the specific case of Novatians, since a canon has been passed regulating their reception into the Church by oikonomia, that canon should be allowed to prevail.

Also, I might add that the West at one point did not accept most of Augustine’s views on sacraments (which your narrative takes for granted). They accepted his view that heretics should not be rebaptized (for really it was also Pope St. Stephen’s view), but did not accept his views that heretics should be received in their ranks (i.e., that valid ordinations could exist outside of the Church). This view did not become commonplace until well into the 13th century. There is, for example, a letter from Justinian to the Pope urging him to change the practice of the Roman Church to accepting Arians back into the Church at their former clerical rank.

I am denying the fact that there is no such thing as a valid baptism outside of the Church (which is the view St. Cyprian and the African Church took at the council of Carthage 255-256).

Even the Second Vatican Council accepts this premise that there is no such thing as a baptism outside of the Church, which is why it understands the boundaries of the Church to include all who have been baptized in the document Unitatis Redintegratio. It is something completely fundamental to the constitution of the Church that outside of her, there can be no baptism, as baptism is the entrance into the Church. Baptism existing outside of the Church implies that the boundaries of the Church are broader than they visibly appear to be, a type of thinking which we reject.

I think it is your interpretation of the fathers that I have trouble with, not the fathers themselves, i.e., the only person I take issue with is St. Cyprian and those that followed him.

I think my interpretations of those canons are in fact entirely well-founded, both by a plain reading of the text, and also by the history of their interpretation by canonists like Balsamon, Zonaras, Blastares, et al.

That was under Metropolitan Philaret (although he later redacted his views)

Patriarch Philaret, you mean, (Metropolitan Philaret typically refers to a later figure) and I am not aware of any time when Patriarch Philaret redacted his views. Indeed, he died in 1633, well before the order to baptize Latins was rescinded in 1667.

it was the one and only time that Russia declared Catholics should be received by baptism. Otherwise, Catholic sacraments were considered grace-filled for the entirety of Russian history

It is not sound to go from the fact that Roman Catholic baptism was accepted to the conclusion that it was therefore considered to be grace-filled. As I have pointed out numerous times, one does not necessarily imply the other, as canon law and the history of the reception of the heterodox into the Church suggests. Their baptisms are accepted by oikonomia (according to St. Basil and later interpreters of the canons), and not by reason of any inherent efficacy of their baptisms, since it is considered entirely appropriate for a bishop to exercise akriveia and to baptize those coming from groups for which no rule yet exists in order to regulate how converts from that group should be received.

in fact, Metropolitan Hilarion declared as much not so long ago.

I did not realize that Metropolitan Hilarion had the power to create history by fiat. His interpretation of Russian history is only one of many. Like I said, there are plenty like Fr. Dragas and Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, who have interpreted the Synod of 1667 much differently.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Stephan…“Let nothing be innovated, keep always to what is traditional”

Forbidding anything of the Baptismal rite be renewed thus confirmation of which the misunderstanding is explicitly read in Firmilian and Cyprians letters.

Cyprian and Firmilian were wrong and no history exists to support their misunderstanding. Not wrong in doing what they certainly thought was right but wrong in their understanding to begin with in which they continued down the path of wrong and non historic.

Encyclical Unitatis Redintegratio “Even the Second Vatican Council accepts this premise that there is no such thing as a baptism outside of the Church,” Where?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

But that position of St. Augustine is inconsistent with the fundamental patristic premise that sacraments only exist where the Church present. The Second Vatican Council’s ecclesiology as spelled out in Unitatis Redintegratio acts as a corrective of sorts to St. Augustine, by reconceiving of the sacraments of those in schism or heresy as being a true entrance into an albeit hindered and incomplete communion with the Church.

The Orthodox simply have traditionally taken that premise to the opposite conclusion, that true sacraments simply are not found amongst those in schism and heresy, an idea which may be found expressed in ancient sources such as St. Athanasius, St. Basil, the Apostolic Canons, St. Cyprian, and St. Firmillian.

This talk of Orthodox, Catholic and patristic views of the sacraments has piqued my interest enough to do some reading. Obviously, the patristic situation is not as simple as the Fathers vs. Augustine (as if Augustine were not a preeminent father of the Church). As have you acknowledged, the Western consensus seems generally (Cyprian and company excluded) to agree that the baptism of heretics is valid if the proper form, matter and intent are observed. Furthermore, the validity of heretical baptisms was claimed to go back to the Apostles Peter and Paul. I don’t think it is possible for an unbiased observer to say that Cyprian’s opinion is apostolic over the Catholic view.

I looked at what Basil had to say about the baptism of heretics, and I’m not sure that his view is not closer to Augustine’s view than you are letting on. This is what he says in Epistle 188.

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 uninstructed 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 Manichæans, 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.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Continued…

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 Hydroparastatæ;, 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 promulgated a kind of canon of communion with them.
newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm

Now, as far as acceptance of baptism is concerned, Basil distinguishes between three groups: heretics, schismatics and unlawful congregations. While he rejects the baptism of heretics, he admits the baptism of schismatics, saying that they still “belong to the Church.” Moreover, “heresy” seems to be used in a limited sense such that, the Catholic understanding of the papacy, to give an example, would not constitute heresy, which Basil defines as “disagreement concerning the actual faith in God.” Nor does “acceptance” appear to point to merely “acceptance by oikonomia.” Basil rejects heretical baptisms on the basis of their fundamentally errant faith in God. To put this in perspective, he is speaking of various Gnostic groups and the Montanists. If Basil thought schismatic baptisms were invalid but should be accepted through economy, he could have simply said heretical baptisms were rejected because they were not in communion with the Catholic (Orthodox) Church. Rather, he argues that Montanist baptisms are invalid because when they use the Trinitarian formula, they intend to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla, i.e. they disagree about actual faith in God.

Interestingly, it seems that Basil would accept current-day Catholic baptisms as valid, unless we take a very hard-line stance of the Filioque issue, saying that it is a fundamentally distorted view of God. In any case, it does not appear that Basil agrees with the Orthodox position expressed in the thread, nor does he agree with Cyprian and Firmilianus.

I found this article, which appears to endorse my reading, more or less.

myriobiblos.gr/texts/documents/northamerican_4.htm

Not being really up to speed on history, I don’t intend to argue this point any further than I have, but I think you might want to reconsider whether Basil’s position was not more nuanced than you have implied.

When Augustine is speaking about sacraments outside of the Church, I would assume he is speaking of (valid) sacraments outside the visible boundaries of the Church. I’m sure he would admit that wherever baptism is present, the Church is also present. Maybe his work On Baptism deals with this. Have you read it? I don’t think it is remotely tenable to limit the grace of God to the visible boundaries of the Church.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I don’t understand all the hate for St. Thomas. First of all, after his experience near the end of his life, he did not stop writing the Summa Theologiae in favor of more “mystical” writings; he stopped writing altogether. Hardly a self-indictment of scholasticism. Secondly, has anyone who criticizes Thomas actually read the Summa Theologiae or any of the other fathers for that matter? It is not as if the Eastern fathers did not heavily philosophize theology, and scholasticism existed in the East before it took root in the West. The whole Filioque controversy is a result of theologians philosophizing themselves into separate corners. Thomas for his part, was not some armchair philosopher-theologian. He was a Dominican friar, and a priest of the Church of God. If you actually read the Summa Theologiae, you would see that it is more of a synthesis and commentary on Scripture and the Fathers than a philosophical treatise (though he wrote those too).