Catholic and Orthodox views on each other's Sacraments

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

The Novations were not heretics, there were schismatics only.

Actually, St. Cyprian regarded them as heretics. They certainly started off as schismatics, but they crossed the line when they began to teach that the Church did not have the authority to forgive the lapsi. To believe that Christ’s Sacrifice is not sufficient for the forgiveness of ANY sin is a heresy of the first order. Take note that the First Ecumenical Council regarded the disagreement with the Novatians as a matter of dogma. Also, take note that the Second Ecumenical Council regarded the Novatians as heretics. St. Basil, of course, understood it differently, and only regarded them as schismatics. I think in this instance, St. Basil was wrong, or perhaps there was a certain type of Cathari in his region which only had schismatic tendencies, and were not altogether heretical.

In fact, the Fathers (according to St Basil) considered that the rules with regard to the Novations served as a prototype for all schismatics. Canon 8 of the 1st was given in order to allow the reception of schismatics into the Church by economia, not to require it!

I don’t understand your distinction between “allowing” and “requiring,” as far as a canon is concerned. A canon with ecumenical status is a rule, no more, no less, and it applies to ALL, not just to a few. And I don’t see the term oikonomia being applied to the Novatians either by the First Ecum, nor by St. Basil. St. Basil did not permit the Baptism of Novatians by oikonomia, but because he believed that the Novatians were only schismatics, and schismatics were still members of the Church.

By definition, the practice of economia required a canon to permit it. When a bishop choose to not apply strictness but wished, for some reason, to be more permissive he would be safe from potential discipline from the synod if there was a canon permitting the practice. If there was no canon and the bishop acted permissively anyway, this is not called economia, it is call “concession”, and the bishop might be subject to discipline.

Actually, your definition of oikonomia is the exact opposite of what I have been taught. Oikonomia does not require a canon to permit it. Rather oikonomia, as far as disciplinary canons are concerned, is, by definition, a particular and unique instance that is contrary to an established canon. If there was a canon that permitted something for some particular and rare occasion, it would no longer be regarded as oikonomia, but rather an instance of adhering to the canons.

I could quote a number of other canons to show that canon 8 of the 1st was a “permissive” canon…

“Permissive” as distinct from what other type of canon? As mentinoed earlier, I don’t understand your distinction between “allowing” and “requiring.”

It says, “…let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop’s dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter…”. Think about this! If there was a bishop of the Church in a city and also a Cathari (Novation, i.e. schismatic) bishop, the schismatic bishop could not, in this case, remain a bishop upon joining the Church, but he could be made a presbyter (i.e. priest)! This would be impossible if the schismatic bishop was a true bishop when he was still in schism! Do I need to find quotes that prove that to demote a bishop into a priest is sacrilege!

That’s not what the Canon is saying. There is no demotion going on here. If there was a Catholic bishop already present in the territory, the Canon is simply saying that the episcopal ordination of the Novatian bishop was invalid (according to the rule that there can only be one bishop in the territory) - i.e., the Canon is simply asserting that the Novatian bishop was never a bishop to begin with, so demotion is not the issue. But, as the Canon affirms, if the Novatian bishop became a bishop in a territory without a Catholic bishop, then his ordination was valid.

It did not rule anything of the sort. It gave specific permissive canons to, as St Basil put it, “follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church”.

Where does St. Basil say this? Can you give a specific reference? AFAIK, St. Basil never applied oikonomia to heretics, but only to schismatics. If EO today believe Catholics are heretics, St. Basil certainly can’t be your source for thinking that you can “accept” the Baptism of Catholics by oikonomia. As mentioned earlier, I am inclined to believe that the practice of modern Eastern Orthodoxy is only a recent development. It really can’t be supported by anything from the early Church. I’m willing to change my mind, but you’ll need to appeal to someone other than St. Basil, for - as stated - St. Basil applied oikonomia only to schismatics, not heretics.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

To impose an interpretation to these canons that says that this is what the Church ruled, first of all, goes contrary to a number of Apostolic Canons, here is a few:

I accept that the Church’s understanding can develop, and that her canons can change accordingly. Obviously, the Church’s understanding of what makes baptism valid or invalid developed over time.

Furthermore, it is totally inconsistent to assume that the Church ruled against St. Cyprian when the very same Church canonized the canon from St Cyprian that articulated his views at the 6th Ecumenical in canon #2.

First of all, the Synod of Trullo does not have Ecumenical status by the very standards of the Eastern Church, since the Western Church never accepted it in toto.

Secondly, the Greek Orthodox historian Zonaras, in the 12th century, plainly admitted (of the canon from St. Cyprian), “These are the opinions therefore of the fathers which assembled in council with the great Cyprian, but they do not apply to all heretics nor to all schismatics. For the Second Ecumenical Council, as we have just said, makes exception of some heretics, and gives their sanction to their reception without baptism.”

Thirdly, the approval of ancient canons does not necessarly imply acceptance during that time, but merely affirmed its validity for the local Church from which it came. For example, we find that several local synods whose canons were accepted had different canons of Scripture.

Fourthly, as Hefele notes, if the Synod of Trullo actually accepted this canon (from St. Cyprian) as a rule in its own day, it would have contradicted itself, for the very same Canon 2 of Trullo accepted the Canons of the Second Ecumenical Council which in fact accepted the Baptism of some heretics and schismatics.

No, permissive canons do not prove anything of the sort. Trying to interpret them as ruling canons strips them completely from the context that the Fathers say that they were intended.

Canons by definition are rules, nothing more, nothing less.

It also forces you to oppose the understanding of these Fathers who were there and attended these councils and were contemporary to their writing, and whom the Church considered were among the greatest teachers of the Church.

I’m not sure what you mean.

St Basil was very strict in his adherence to the canons that came from the 1st Ecumenical Council! There is no way it can be said of him that he was “preaching a contrary practice”!

I didn’t say he preached a practice contrary to that of the First Ecum, but rather of the Second Ecum. St. Basil himself accepted the Baptism of schismatics, but he taught that all heretics could not have true Baptism. This latter teaching is contrary to the ruling of the Second Ecum, which accepted the Baptism of some heretics - e.g., Arians, Macedonians, etc.

What I am saying is that if Sts. Basil and Cyprian had known of the ruling of the Second Ecumenical Council, they would have submitted themselves to its authorty.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[hazcompat]

For to despise the present age, not to love transitory things, unreservedly to stretch out the mind in humility to God and our neighbor, to preserve patience against offered insults and, with patience guarded, to repel the pain of malice from the heart, to give one’s property to the poor, not to covet that of others, to esteem the friend in God, on God’s account to love even those who are hostile, to mourn at the affliction of a neighbor, not to exult in the death of one who is an enemy, this is the new creature whom the Master of the nations seeks with watchful eye amid the other disciples, saying:“If, then, any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away. Behold all things are made new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

St. Gregory the Great

peace

 

[JohnVIII]

St Basil in many cases didn’t apply economia even to schismatics. (If St Basil cannot be respected neither can any Father of the Church!).

Basil Canon 47:

As for Encratites and Saccophori and Apotactites, they come under the same rule as Novatians; for concerning the latter a Canon has been propagated, even though different, whereas nothing has been said there and as touching the former. Be that as it may, we rebaptized such persons. If it be objected what we are doing is forbidden as regards this practice of re-baptism, precisely as in the case of present-day Romans, for the sake of economy, yet we insist that our rule prevail, since, inasmuch and precisely as it is an offshoot of the Marcionites, the heresy of those who abominate marriage, and who shun wine, and who call God’s creation tainted. We therefore do not admit them into the Church unless they get baptized with our baptism. For let them not say that they are baptized in Father and Son Holy Spirit Who Assume God to Be a Bad Creature, in the Manner vying with the Marcionites and other heretics. So that if this pleases them more Bishops ought to adopt it, and thus establish as a Canon, in order that anyone following shall be in no danger, and anyone replying by citing it shall be deemed worthy of credence.

Actually, your definition of oikonomia is the exact opposite of what I have been taught. Oikonomia does not require a canon to permit it. Rather oikonomia, as far as disciplinary canons are concerned, is, by definition, a particular and unique instance that is contrary to an established canon. If there was a canon that permitted something for some particular and rare occasion, it would no longer be regarded as oikonomia, but rather an instance of adhering to the canons.

Note the underline above, a canon is required.

St. Cyprian regarded them as heretics…St. Basil, of course, understood it differently, and only regarded them as schismatics

OK, I concede this point. Maybe the only ones who did not accept the Novatians into the Church with Chrismation only was St Cyprian & St Basil.

You said, “schismatics were still members of the Church”. Pope Steven believed this, St Basil & St Cyprian did not. I don’t think it is likely that St Pope Clement (who was responsible for the version of the Canon of the Holy Apostles that was accepted by the Church) believed this either. As St Cyprian insisted, this issue has been a cause of division in the Church. But the way the Church settled this is NOT by dogmatic pronouncements (until Vatican II, which I think was uncalled for), but by allowing the practice of accepting heretic & schismatics into Catholic unity without some sacraments by economia & regulating the use of economia by permissive canons, while at the same time affirming the teaching that heretics & schismatics are not in the Church & w/o grace.

That’s not what the Canon is saying. There is no demotion going on here. If there was a Catholic bishop already present in the territory, the Canon is simply saying that the episcopal ordination of the Novatian bishop was invalid (according to the rule that there can only be one bishop in the territory) - i.e., the Canon is simply asserting that the Novatian bishop was never a bishop to begin with, so demotion is not the issue. But, as the Canon affirms, if the Novatian bishop became a bishop in a territory without a Catholic bishop, then his ordination was valid.

I’ve got to hand it to you Brother Marduk, that was a very creative answer! I doubt that you got that from anywhere other then from you superior creative mind. My attempt to be creative in reply is this: What if the first bishop of a city was a schismatic bishop, then later a bishop of the Catholic Church was put there, then the schismatic bishop wished to join in Catholic unity. If your answer is correct then it would have to be that the Catholic bishop’s ordination would have to be the one declared invalid! How strained would this situation be the application of the canons?

Heretics were accepted by established customs by many bishops prior to the time of St Basil. Early canons were to regulate this and, “follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church”, (you asked where St Basil said this, in Canon #1). In that same canon #1 he also said of schismatics: “after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others”. And in that same canon he referred to the practice of permitting either heretics or schismatics to join the Church without “the true baptism as prescribed by the Church” as “join on top of their baptism”.

I am inclined to believe that the practice of modern Eastern Orthodoxy is only a recent development. It really can’t be supported by anything from the early Church. I’m willing to change my mind

Canon #1, St Basil said, “I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as regards to them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of them appear to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition actually prevent men from being saved because of their being to indolent in regard to baptism”.

Canon #1 of St Basil is a long one. Perhaps it would be best if you went here to read it.

 

[JohnVIII]

Canon I, St Basil:

So far as concerns the question of the Cathari, though it had been said previously you did well to mention the subject, since it is necessary to follow the custom obtaining in each particular country because of their treating baptism differently. After having at that time threshed out the matter concerning these men, it seems to me that there is nothing further to say in regard to the Pepuzeni. According I was mazed to find that the matter had appealed to great Dionysius in spite of his being canonical. For the older authorities had judged that baptism acceptable which disregarded no point of the faith. Hence they have called some of them heresies, and others schisms, and others begin Parasynagogues (i.e. conventicles). Heresies is the same name applied to those who have broken entirely and have become alienated from the faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and redeemable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves. Parasynagogues is the name applied to gatherings held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops, and those held by uneducated laities. As, for instance, when one has been arraigned for misdemeanor held aloft from liturgy and refused to submit to the Canons, but laid claim to the presidency and liturgy for himself, and some other persons departed with him, leaving the catholic Church - that is a parasynagogue. Heresies, on the other hand, are such as those of the Manichees and Valentinians and Marcionists, and that of these Pepuzeni themselves; for the question is one involving a difference of faith in God itself. It therefore seems best to those dealt the subject in the beginning to rule that the attitude of heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church; as for those, on the other hand, who were in parasynagogues, if they have been improved by considerable repentance and are willing to return, they are to be emitted again into the Church, so that often even the easy part in orders with the insubordinates, provided that they manifest regret, may be admitted again to the same rank. As touching the Pepuzeni, therefore, it is obvious that they are heretics; for they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, having illicitly and impudently brazend Montanus and Priscilla with the appellation of the Paraclete (or Comforter). They deserve to be condemned, therefore, whether it be that they are want to deified themselves or others as human beings, or that they have roundly insulted the Holy Spirit by comparing It to human beings; according they have thus liable to everlasting condemnation, because the fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable (Matt. 12:31). What reason, then, is therefore proving their baptism, which they are baptizing in (the name of) the Father, the Son, and Montanus and Priscilla? For persons have not been baptized to have been baptized in names that have not been handed down to by the traditional teaching; so that if this fact has escaped the notice of the great Dionysius, it is nevertheless incumbent upon us to guard against imitating the mistake. For the absurdity is self-evident and pernicious to all who have any share at all of ability to reason even in a small way.

-snip-

 

[JohnVIII]

-snip-

As for the Cathari, they too are to be classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities - those, I mean, who form the party of Cyprian and our own Firmilian - to classed them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who succeeded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Therefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church. In as much, however, as it seemed best to some of those in the regions of Asia, for the sake of extraordinary concession (or “economy”) to the many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted. As for the case of Encratites, however, it behooves us to look upon it as a crime, since though to make themselves unacceptable to the Church they have attempted to anticipate the situation by advocating a baptism of their own; hence they themselves have run counter to their own custom. I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as regards to them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of them appear to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition actually prevent men from being saved because of their being to indolent in regard to baptism. But if they keep our baptism, let this not deter us. For we are not obliged to return thanks to them, but to serve the Canons with exactitude. But let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed by the faithful, that is to say, and thus be admitted to the Mysteries. I am aware that we have admitted to the chief seat of bishops the brethren in the party of Zonius and Satorinus who used to belong to that class. So that we are no longer able to distinguish those who were attached to that order from the Church, as much as they say that as a result of the acceptance of the bishops we have ipso facto made it a canonical obligation to allow them communion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

There is much to respond to in your recent post, but given my time constraints, I can only respond to this portion for now:

I’ve got to hand it to you Brother Marduk, that was a very creative answer! I doubt that you got that from anywhere other then from you superior creative mind. My attempt to be creative in reply is this: What if the first bishop of a city was a schismatic bishop, then later a bishop of the Catholic Church was put there, then the schismatic bishop wished to join in Catholic unity. If your answer is correct then it would have to be that the Catholic bishop’s ordination would have to be the one declared invalid! How strained would this situation be the application of the canons?

First, it’s inconceivable that in any given place, a Novatian bishop could exist before a Catholic bishop, because the Novatians came later than Catholics. If a certain place was found to have only Novatian clergy - as the Canon admits - it is not because there were Novatians there first, but because the Catholic clergy had become Novatians, and the subsequent succession was Novatian. In other places, there were both Novatian and Catholic clergy (priests and bishop), but the Catholic clergy was always there first.

Secondly, the Greek Orthodox canonist Alexius Aristenus, and Greek Orthodox historian John Zonaras both interepret the canon as I have proposed. Here is Aristenus’ commentary: “If any of them be bishops or chorepiscopi they shall remain in the same rank, unless perchance in the same city there be found a bishop of the Catholic Church, ordained before their coming. For in this case he that was properly bishop from the first shall have the preference, and he alone shall retain the episcopal throne. For it is not right that in the same city there should be two bishops…”

I will respond to the rest of your points - hopefully by this weekend (I haven’t forgotten about the issue regarding the Canons of the Council of Carthage).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear brother Adrian,

…the Greek Orthodox canonist Alexius Aristenus, and Greek Orthodox historian John Zonaras both interepret the canon as I have proposed. Here is Aristenus’ commentary: “If any of them be bishops or chorepiscopi they shall remain in the same rank, unless perchance in the same city there be found a bishop of the Catholic Church, ordained before their coming. For in this case he that was properly bishop from the first shall have the preference, and he alone shall retain the episcopal throne. For it is not right that in the same city there should be two bishops…”

Blessings,
Marduk

You have amazed me once again Brother Marduk :clapping:. I don’t doubt that there were many who did consider the schismatics were a part of the Church. But there is no question that there were many who did not believe schismatics are in the Church. I reject the notion that Rome or the Bishop of Rome can settle these issues dogmatically. I maintain, as I have said before, that this issue has never been universally resolved from a dogmatic point of view, it has been resolved only in a practical sense by economic regulations which has kept this issue from being a reason for the division of the Church. As St Basil said, “it is necessary to follow the custom obtaining in each particular country because of their treating baptism differently”. The particular custom in Rome since the time of Pope Steven (for the most part) has been that baptism is valid both in and outside of the Church. This view of Rome does not invalidate the view of St Cyprian or St Basil or a host of other saints and fathers of the Church.

My opinion actually is that probably most schismatics are in fact in the Church. I hesitate to express this opinion because of my respect for St Basil who clearly did not consider schismatics to be in the Church. But I feel at liberty to do so simply because the matter is not a dogma of the Church (Vatican II notwithstanding). I read alot of St Basil and he did not want to except the Cathari without baptism, so if economia was simply a disregard for the canons (as you seem to have suggested) why didn’t he just exercise economia and re-baptize them? Rather, he had to first consider them to be actually classed as heretics as he did in canon 47 even though he admitted that they were officially classed as schismatics (canon 1), that way he could argue that canon 8 of the 1st Ecumenical didn’t apply. And for doing this he was accused of doing that which was forbidden with regards to re-baptism. But he encouraged other bishops to do like wise so that on the basis of a prevailing custom a canon could be established so that no bishop would be in danger, as he said in canon 47, “if this pleases them more Bishops ought to adopt it, and thus establish as a Canon, in order that anyone following shall be in no danger, and anyone replying by citing it shall be deemed worthy of credence”. So you see, a permissive canon in needed for economia, otherwise it becomes concession.

Making a canon that would preserve the apostolic custom of giving a schismatic the true baptism of the Church upon joining the Church (for those who wished to do so) is clearly part of what the 2nd canon of the 6th Ecumenical did by the official acceptance of the of the 85 Canons of the Holy Apostles, the 92 canons of St Basil, and the one canon of St Cyprian. If it is so that the 1st bishop of the universal Church (the Pope) never voted on this (confirmed) that does not make it invalid. The lack of the confirmation of the Pope is not a de facto veto. It only means that it is not technically universal, but it is certainly virtually universal. If you wish to argue that it is completely void without the consent of the Pope then this, Bother Marduk, is what I meant when I once told you that I thought that your version of a High Petrine view has an element of Absolutism to it. If the lack of consent by the Pope is the same as a absolute veto then it really is a High/Absolute Petrine view. But if when a major Church counsel has a ruling not confirmed by the Pope but still has a great deal of true authority then it can be simply a High Petrine view. The only way I can give ANYTHING absolute to the 1st bishop of the Universal Church is if he is an actual apostle of the rank of the 12 apostles and the ONLY one of this rank, so that he outranks all bishops. The first appointed bishop of every ancient See was chosen of the 70 that Christ called, which were sometimes also called apostles, but were apostles of a lessor rank then the 12, thus showing that an Apostle (of the 12) outranks any bishop (of the 70).

My “Orthodox” books claim that the 6th Ecumenical was confirmed by Rome. In “The Rudder” (Apostolos Makrakis) on page 289 he quotes Pope Adrian I saying, “I accept the decisions made by the same holy Sixth Council, together with all the Canons it has duly and divinely uttered, wherein they are expressed”, and Pope Gregory, “Wherefore the assembly of holy men has delivered this chapter to the Church by God’s demand as a matter of the greatest salvation”.

Another matter, you said that the canons of the 1st & 2nd Ecumenical Council accepted the baptism of any heretic that still had proper form & matter & held an orthodox view of the Trinity. Have anything to say about the Donatists? Most considered them to be heretics and as I understand it even Rome re-baptized them. But they held an orthodox view of the Trinity and their baptism was correctly done in every respect. A Church council held in Carthage in 418 decided to establish for themselves canons that treated Donatists essentially as schismatics and fully accepted them, even without the usual requirement that a schismatic at least be re-chrismatied! As I understand it even Rome objected at this, but the canons of this counsel were also accepted (with a few corrections) at the 6th Ecumenical Council.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Basil Canon 47:

As for Encratites and Saccophori and Apotactites, they come under the same rule as Novatians; for concerning the latter a Canon has been propagated, even though different, whereas nothing has been said there and as touching the former. Be that as it may, we rebaptized such persons. If it be objected what we are doing is forbidden as regards this practice of re-baptism, precisely as in the case of present-day Romans, for the sake of economy, yet we insist that our rule prevail, since, inasmuch and precisely as it is an offshoot of the Marcionites, the heresy of those who abominate marriage, and who shun wine, and who call God’s creation tainted. We therefore do not admit them into the Church unless they get baptized with our baptism. For let them not say that they are baptized in Father and Son Holy Spirit Who Assume God to Be a Bad Creature, in the Manner vying with the Marcionites and other heretics. So that if this pleases them more Bishops ought to adopt it, and thus establish as a Canon, in order that anyone following shall be in no danger, and anyone replying by citing it shall be deemed worthy of credence.

Note the underline above, a canon is required.

The principle of economy is not utilized BECAUSE it is justified by an existing rule. Rather, it is utilized IN SPITE OF an existing rule. Economy is used to “relax” the severity of an existing rule.

Read the last several lines of your quote again. The Canon that St. Basil wanted established was not a Canon that would allow economy to be utilized for the acceptance of the Baptism of the Encratites, Saccophori and Apotactites, but rather a Canon that would definitely forbid the acceptance of the Baptism of the Encratites, Saccophori and Apotactites.

You said, “schismatics were still members of the Church”. Pope Steven believed this, St Basil & St Cyprian did not.

Please read your full quote of St. Basil’s Canon 1 again. Permit me to provide the relevant portion for you here:
"the attitude of heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church."

As St Cyprian insisted, this issue has been a cause of division in the Church. But the way the Church settled this is NOT by dogmatic pronouncements (until Vatican II, which I think was uncalled for), but by allowing the practice of accepting heretic & schismatics into Catholic unity without some sacraments by economia & regulating the use of economia by permissive canons, while at the same time affirming the teaching that heretics & schismatics are not in the Church & w/o grace.

First, there is no indication that the Ecum Councils accepted the baptism/sacraments of schismatics and some heretics by oikonomia. If they actually utilized oikonomia, then they would have accepted the (supposedly) graceless baptism of ALL heretics and schismatics. But the Ecumenical Councils distinguished between the Baptism/sacraments of certain heretics and schismatics from the Baptism/sacraments of others. That they made that specific distinction can only mean that they considered some to have true Baptism, while others did not.

Secondly, if the Ecum Councils indeed did not baptize those who actually needed baptism, they would be violating the Apostolic Canon you quoted earlier, which condemns those who do not give the true Baptism where it is needed. The only possible reason that the Ecumenical Councils could have accepted the Baptism of schismatics and some heretics is if they actually did believe that those schismatics and (some) heretics had true Baptism.

Thirdly, even assuming that oikonomia was exercised, one still has to account for the modern EO notion that the Sacrament of Christmation can somehow “make up” for the lack of Grace in an invalid Baptism. Can you give any support for that idea from the early Fathers? If not, we would have to chalk that one up to a genuine novelty in modern EO teaching.

Heretics were accepted by established customs by many bishops prior to the time of St Basil. Early canons were to regulate this and, “follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church”, (you asked where St Basil said this, in Canon #1). In that same canon #1 he also said of schismatics: “after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others”.

St. Basil was not the one who said that of schismatics. He was simply explaining the position of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian. Keep in mind that after he explains their position, he states immediately afterwards that since those in Asia accepted the Baptism of the schismatic Novatians by economy, his hearers/readers should accept it as well - proving my earlier statement that St. Basil applied oikonomia to schismatics.

And in that same canon he referred to the practice of permitting either heretics or schismatics to join the Church without “the true baptism as prescribed by the Church” as “join on top of their baptism.”

I don’t understand your purpose for pointing this out. Please explain.

Canon #1 of St Basil is a long one. Perhaps it would be best if you went here to read it.

May I ask the source of your translations of St. Basil’s canons? The translation you have given here is very different from Schaff’s NPNF series.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear brother Adrian,

The principle of economy is not utilized BECAUSE it is justified by an existing rule. Rather, it is utilized IN SPITE OF an existing rule. Economy is used to “relax” the severity of an existing rule.

It is not permitted to relax the severity of any canon unless there is another canon that allows for that. There was even a case where a certain bishop came under the scrutiny of his synod for relaxing an epitimia in accordance with a canon that permitted this because the synod considered the use of the permissive canon uncalled for.

Your quote…

"the attitude of heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church."

…does not show St Basil’s opinion here. The phrase: “they were to be considered as” is not the same as saying “they are”. I could consider you to be Roman Catholic, and if I did I might refer to you as my Roman Catholic brother, but that does not mean you are in fact Roman Catholic now does it? When a schismatic is excepted on top of their baptism of course it is as if their baptism is the baptism of the Church, it does not mean that it is.

First, there is no indication that the Ecum Councils accepted the baptism/sacraments of schismatics and some heretics by oikonomia.

“If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church.”

If they actually utilized oikonomia, then they would have accepted the (supposedly) graceless baptism of ALL heretics and schismatics. But the Ecumenical Councils distinguished between the Baptism/sacraments of certain heretics and schismatics from the Baptism/sacraments of others. That they made that specific distinction can only mean that they considered some to have true Baptism, while others did not.

No, their judgment had to to with which way (strictness of economy) would more likely persuade a greater number of heretics & schismatic to return to orthodoxy and Catholic unity. One consideration was how large the group is (which is a consideration that has nothing to do with their faith or how they baptize). Donatists outnumbered orthodox only in Africa, hence you find African canons treating them by economy as if they were already Catholic, but everywhere else (even Rome) re-baptized them! Don’t try to say one side was wrong and the other right, they were both right! They were received into the Church in accordance to custom adopted in each particular locality, which customs mainly came about due to the needs of that particular country. As St Basil said, “it is necessary to follow the custom obtaining in each particular country because of their treating baptism differently”.

Thirdly, even assuming that oikonomia was exercised, one still has to account for the modern EO notion that the Sacrament of Christmation can somehow “make up” for the lack of Grace in an invalid Baptism. Can you give any support for that idea from the early Fathers? If not, we would have to chalk that one up to a genuine novelty in modern EO teaching.

Did you overlook the part that said, “let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed by the faithful, that is to say, and thus be admitted to the Mysteries”?

…cont…

 

[JohnVIII]

…cont…

St. Basil was not the one who said that of schismatics. He was simply explaining the position of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian. Keep in mind that after he explains their position, he states immediately afterwards that since those in Asia accepted the Baptism of the schismatic Novatians by economy, his hearers/readers should accept it as well - proving my earlier statement that St. Basil applied oikonomia to schismatics.

St Basil was explaining that that the position of St Cyprian & St. Firmilian was the view that he believed was correct. Let me qoute that part that you are commenting on:

“As for the Cathari, they too are to be classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities - those, I mean, who form the party of Cyprian and our own Firmilian - to classed them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who succeeded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Therefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church.”

Does anyone else out there reading this above quote of St Basil care to chime in and say if you agree with Brother Marduk that St Basil actually disagreed with what what St Basil called “ancient authorities”?

Brother Marduk, when St Basil said, “let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed”, it is affirmed that the one joining the Church did so not by Catholic baptism, but by chrismation, and that their baptism is not the baptism of the Church.

Brother Marduk, what is your take on St Basil saying: “But if they keep our baptism, let this not deter us. For we are not obliged to return thanks to them, but to serve the Canons with exactitude.” To me he’s saying that even if some heretics and/or schismatics may accept Catholic baptism (by economy on their part) we are not obligated to return the favor and accept their baptism.

May I ask the source of your translations of St. Basil’s canons? The translation you have given here is very different from Schaff’s NPNF series.

The translation is by Apostolos Makrakis, the book is called “The Rudder”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

It is not permitted to relax the severity of any canon unless there is another canon that allows for that. There was even a case where a certain bishop came under the scrutiny of his synod for relaxing an epitimia in accordance with a canon that permitted this because the synod considered the use of the permissive canon uncalled for.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Oikonomia need not have a prior canon to justify its use. Most times, it is merely custom that justifies oikonomia. A canon is normally only established for the use of oikonomia if there is contention over its use. But where it is readily acceptable, which is many times the case, no canon is needed.

Your quote…does not show St Basil’s opinion here. The phrase: “they were to be considered as” is not the same as saying “they are”. I could consider you to be Roman Catholic, and if I did I might refer to you as my Roman Catholic brother, but that does not mean you are in fact Roman Catholic now does it? When a schismatic is excepted on top of their baptism of course it is as if their baptism is the baptism of the Church, it does not mean that it is.

I believe your own statement here solves the matter. The important missing word from St. Basil’s statement is the word “IF.” St. Basil does not say, “they were to be considered AS IF they belonged to the Church.” No. St. Basil specifically states, “they were to be considered AS STILL belonging to the Church.”

“If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church.”

This translation is not convincing at all. “Oikonomia” is a common word normally translated “management” or “government.” Our Eastern/Oriental use of the term to refer to the relaxation of a rule’s severity is not the normative use of the word, but is a specific ecclesiastical usage. The Church often uses secular terms in a different sense when applied in the ecclesiastical context. The text you have translated here with the word “economy” is more properly translated “If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general management of the Church, we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who have governed the affairs of our Church.” I think EO authors are imposing the word “economy” on the English translation to try to justify the novel idea that one can use oikonomia to contradict the divine law of the necessity of baptism. I affirm what I have stated in the distant past - namely, the Church has absolutely no authority to use oikonomia to cancel a divine law. The necessity of Baptism is a divine law. The Church has absolutely no authority to say, “we won’t baptize you even though you need it, just for the sake of economy.” If the early Church did not baptize schismatics and certain heretics, it is for no other reason than that they believed that these schismatics and certain heretics really did have true Baptism.

Though I strongly disagree with those EO who believe Catholics are heretics, they are nevertheless being perfectly consistent with Sacred Tradition if they baptize Catholics. Those EO who believe Catholics are heretics and DO NOT baptize, pretending to apply oikonomia, have introduced a novelty into the Church.

On the other hand, not all EO believe Catholics are heretics, but only schismatics (such as yourself, brother Adrian). For THESE particular EO, it is perfectly consistent with Sacred Tradition for them NOT to baptize Catholics, and simply chrismate them.

No, their judgment had to to with which way (strictness of economy) would more likely persuade a greater number of heretics & schismatic to return to orthodoxy and Catholic unity.

As mentioned, St. Basil did this only for schismatics such as Novatians, who he believed were still members of the Church. He didn’t do it for heretics AT ALL.

One consideration was how large the group is (which is a consideration that has nothing to do with their faith or how they baptize). Donatists outnumbered orthodox only in Africa, hence you find African canons treating them by economy as if they were already Catholic

The issue about their numbers had nothing to do with their baptism, but with whether or not former Donatists could and should be accepted into the clergy (because there was a great need for clergy in Africa).

The Church of Carthage accepted Donatist Baptism - did not re-Baptize them - because the Church considered their Baptism to be true (not considered their baptism AS IF it was true, but considered their baptism to be true). As noted in a prior post, if the Church did not baptize those who needed baptism, they would be violating the ancient Apostolic Canon – a point, by the way, which you have not yet addressed.

In any case, your “numbers” rationale is contradicted by the Canon of the 2nd Ecum. The 2nd Ecum admitted that - of the heretics whose baptisms the Council rejected - “there are many such here, particularly those who come from the country of the Galatians.” If numbers were the reason to apply oikonomia (not that the 2nd Ecum applied oikonomia in their acceptance of the Baptism of some heretics), then the 2nd Ecum would have accepted even the Baptisms of those heretics that it in fact rejected.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

but everywhere else (even Rome) re-baptized them!

Can you give some proof that the Church in Rome rebaptized Donatists?

Don’t try to say one side was wrong and the other right, they were both right! They were received into the Church in accordance to custom adopted in each particular locality, which customs mainly came about due to the needs of that particular country. As St Basil said, “it is necessary to follow the custom obtaining in each particular country because of their treating baptism differently.”

Your source has translated St. Basil’s statement rather liberally, probably to try to support the modern EO practice. I believe the NPNF translation is more faithful:
“As to your inquiry 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.”

The sense of what St. Basil actually stated is very different from what your source gives you. According to your source, the custom of each country regarding the Novatians was different and one should follow the different customs that prevail in each country. But that is false. The First Ecumenical Council had settled the issue. The NPNF translation makes it clear that the difference in custom occurred IN THE PAST. When St. Basil says “to follow the custom in each region,” he is actually referring to the UNANIMOUS custom regarding the Cathari (or Novatians) that has already obtained in each region because of the decree that - as St.Basil states - “has already been made” (i.e., referring to the ruling of the First Ecum). The quote you give takes it completely out of context to make it seem like every Church is free to hold different opinions on this point.

Now, St. Basil admits that, as far as heretical/schismatic baptism is concerned, the only canon available was the one concerning the Novatians, which stated that their Baptism was to be accepted. The principle of oikonomia that St. Basil applied was to those schismatics for which no canon had yet been given by the Ecumenical Councils. On the matter of heretics, St. Basil was adamant that their Baptism should not be accepted at all. But St. Basil was not around when the Second Ecumenical Council promulgated its own Canon VII, which indeed accepted the Baptism of SOME heretics.

St. Basil indeed accepted the Baptism of the Novatians according to the Canon of Nicea, contrary to the opinions of the “ancients” (i.e., Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian) - and I quoted exactly where he stated this in my previous post (so I am not sure what your issue is on that point). I am also of the opinion that St. Basil would have changed his mind about rejecting the Baptism of ALL heretics, if he was aware of the ruling of the Second Ecumenical Council. In fact, he admits this when he speaks of the Encratites: “My opinion, therefore, is that, nothing being distinctly laid down concerning them,” He rejected the Baptism of the Encratites, but, as you can see, he would have submitted to the ruling on them had there been one.

From the Councils and the Fathers, we can glean the conditions for accepting the Baptism of those outside the visible boundaries of the Church (i.e., schismatics and heretics). St. Basil himself gave one of these conditions: “For those who have not been baptized into the names delivered to us have not been baptized at all.” This was actually the condition given by Pope St. Stephen in his disagreement with St. Cyprian (it was St. Firmillian who informed us that Pope St. Stephen’s position was that those who baptized in the three Names had a valid Baptism - non-Catholic polemicists who claim that Pope St. Stephen accepted ALL heretical baptisms are bearing false witness). By this condition, St. Basil rejected the Baptism of the Montanists, who baptized into the names of Father, Son, and Montanus or Priscilla. The Second Ecum gave other corollary conditions. Eunomians baptized with only one immersion (because they only baptized into the Name of the Creator and into the death of Christ); Sabellians taught the identity of Father and Son. This informs us that the acceptance or rejection of the Baptism of those outside the visible boundaries of the Church depended on (1) whether or not they baptized into the Three Names; and (2) the orthodoxy of their Trinitarian theology. Those who met these conditions, though they were otherwise heretics or schismatics, had a true Baptism.

Did you overlook the part that said, “let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed by the faithful, that is to say, and thus be admitted to the Mysteries”?

No. I have no problem with Chrismation of baptized converts - even the Catholic Church, though accepting the Baptism of Anglican and Lutheran converts, chrismate the converts. My concern is the EO idea that the Grace of the Sacrament of Chrismation can replace or “fill up” the Grace of the Sacrament of Baptism “by economy.” Can you provide any patristic warrant for that idea?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear brother Adrian,

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Oikonomia need not have a prior canon to justify its use. Most times, it is merely custom that justifies oikonomia. A canon is normally only established for the use of oikonomia if there is contention over its use. But where it is readily acceptable, which is many times the case, no canon is needed.

Custom is what always proceeds a canon. So I sort of agree with you here. But for some of the rest of what you say, we need to “agree to disagree” indeed. Holy Chrismation does fill up the grace of an empty baptism, and this is no novelty, so lets just agree to disagree about that.

On the other hand, not all EO believe Catholics are heretics, but only schismatics (such as yourself, brother Adrian)

I think what your are saying here is that I believe RC are schismatic. Either that or you are saying that I am schismatic. I was in fact schismatic at one time. In obedience to a certain spiritual father I once had I ended up for a short time in a certain Old Calendarist Greek jurisdiction that I am sure was schismatic. So I had some experience with being in schism as well as the perilous of having an unqualified Spiritual Father. As for Rome being in schism, I do not believe they are for any reason we have discussed. I sometimes think they may be because of issues concerning marriage. But basically no, I do not think Rome is either heretic or schismatic.

You wanted to speak of novelty in the EO. For a priest to give an epitimia that is very weak or even no epitimia at all. I think RC always give some kind of epitimia (penance). But why bother even giving a penance if it’s 5 hail Mary’s for the sin of adultery!? Layman can’t tell the bishops what to do (no, not even in EO!), but I know that a penance is in fact medicine that is given to cure the disease of sin, but aspirin will not cure a brain tumor, and an inappropriate epitimia will not help cure sin! :hypno:

I have nothing more to say.

God bless you my brother!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

I think what your are saying here is that I believe RC are schismatic. Either that or you are saying that I am schismatic. I was in fact schismatic at one time. In obedience to a certain spiritual father I once had I ended up for a short time in a certain Old Calendarist Greek jurisdiction that I am sure was schismatic. So I had some experience with being in schism as well as the perilous of having an unqualified Spiritual Father. As for Rome being in schism, I do not believe they are for any reason we have discussed. I sometimes think they may be because of issues concerning marriage. But basically no, I do not think Rome is either heretic or schismatic.

I know the term “schismatic” normally has a bad connotation. I personally understand “schismatic” according to St. Basil’s understanding - someone who STILL belongs to the Church, but is merely not visibly united to her because of a matter that is capable of mutual solution. That is what I beleive the relationship of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches actually is - we are all members of the same Church, but are simply not visibly united because of matters that can and will be eventually solved. Would you disagree with that understanding? At the very least, I believe it is a much better position than calling each other heretics.

You wanted to speak of novelty in the EO. For a priest to give an epitimia that is very weak or even no epitimia at all. I think RC always give some kind of epitimia (penance). But why bother even giving a penance if it’s 5 hail Mary’s for the sin of adultery!? Layman can’t tell the bishops what to do (no, not even in EO!), but I know that a penance is in fact medicine that is given to cure the disease of sin, but aspirin will not cure a brain tumor, and an inappropriate epitimia will not help cure sin! :hypno:

Yes, I have met EO who admit that penance is not normative in your Church. As far as the Latin Church is concerned, I agree with you that a penance should be proportional to the sin, and I agree that there are Latin priests who give unusually light penances. But I think that depends on the priest. I have spoken to a few Latin priests about this, and the response I’ve always gotten is that penitents are expected to be more responsible for their own spiritual life and health as far as penance is concerned. I’ve met Latin Catholics who will, for instance, deprive themselves of the Communion for a short period of time as a self-imposed penance.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear brother Adrian,

I know the term “schismatic” normally has a bad connotation. I personally understand “schismatic” according to St. Basil’s understanding - someone who STILL belongs to the Church, but is merely not visibly united to her because of a matter that is capable of mutual solution. That is what I beleive the relationship of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches actually is - we are all members of the same Church, but are simply not visibly united because of matters that can and will be eventually solved. Would you disagree with that understanding? At the very least, I believe it is a much better position than calling each other heretics.

Your not going to give up that “St. Basil’s understanding” (which it isn’t) are you? My answer is what I already told you, I disagree with St Basil on this because I do believe most schismatics are in the Church.

If I was not allowed to believe that both EO & RC had grace & I had to believe only one had grace I would choose to believe EO has grace. If I was not allowed to believe that both EO & OO had grace & I had to believe only one had grace I would choose to believe OO has grace. I cannot believe that ONLY RC has grace, but I could believe only OO has grace. - My home is in the Orthodox Church, but the main reason I am in the Antiocian Church is because they do officially honor the agreement at Chambesy in Geneva in 1985 and hence do not consider miaphysite to be heterodox. - And, yes, it would be much better if we didn’t call each other heretics or schismatics, but Orthodox like to preserve the past and that attitude was indeed in our past. - I don’t have all the answers (like you do) I’m just a messed up old man with a heavy burden of sin.

I’ve met Latin Catholics who will, for instance, deprive themselves of the Communion for a short period of time as a self-imposed penance.

I don’t believe in self-imposed penance, it takes out the element of obedience and replaces it with vain-glory.