Catholic/Orthodox unity

[josie_L]

BINGO! That’s why we call it eikonomia!! It isn’t used for every situation. You are still very obstinate in your mischaracterization of Orthodoxy.

I have no problems with economia Harpazo, my issue is that economia with regard to Catholics is not uniform throughout the Orthodox community, that is, why are (RC) Catholics who have received the same sacraments being (re) baptized by some into Orthodoxy while others are being chrismated (you only have to read the conversion stories of Catholics now Orthodox to see this). It does not make sense. And furthermore, I am not mischaracterizing Orthodoxy it is Orthodoxy itself that is not clear as to whether or not it accepts Catholic baptisms uniformly (some do, some don’t)? You only have to look at my above post to know that there is divisiveness with regard to rebaptism and/or how to accept converts into the Orthodox community.

Why?

Because this lack of a uniform stance makes little sense and because we are on a non-Catholic forum wherein we are supposed to debate.

As was previously stated by many Orthodox, all heterodox sacraments are considered “invalid” to use your phrasing.

That is not true, there are many Orthodox who believe that the baptism of other Christians are valid, i.e., they do not have to be baptized upon entering Orthodoxy (please read my above post).

Chrismation is in eikonomia so as to make up for whatever was lacking in the previous baptism.

Again I repeat why are some Catholics being (re) baptized into Orthodoxy while others are not, i.e., they are chrismated instead (when all Catholics have received similar sacraments in their previous Church) ?

You also act as if eikonomia is used the same across the board. It wouldn’t be eikonomia if it was. My priest (born and raised Catholic) was baptized when he was received into Orthodoxy.

Bingo!! Why was your priest baptized into Orthodoxy while others exactly like him (Catholics sharing similar sacraments) were not? Why the inconsistency for people who previously shared the same faith?

So it is clearly not the same across the board. Catholics exercise eikonomia, too. For example, when male Protestant ministers convert to the RCC, they may be permitted to receive Holy Orders by their bishop.

But Protestantism is not uniform in beliefs/faith, hence the eikonomia, as for Catholics converting to Orthodoxy wherein lies the confusion (Catholics have uniformity of faith)?

God bless.

Josie

 

[brigantine]

Again I repeat why are some Catholics being (re) baptized into Orthodoxy while others are not, i.e., they are chrismated instead (when all Catholics have received similar sacraments in their previous Church) ?

Eikonomia is not used the same across the board. I’m not sure why your not getting this?? ALL non-Orthodox baptisms are not complete and SOME Bishops choose to re-Baptize and others choose to correct the deficiencies through Chrismation. So what? Thats a Bishops prerogative and its Eikonomia!

Because this lack of a uniform stance makes little sense and because we are on a non-Catholic forum wherein we are supposed to debate.

The simplest answer to this is it does not have to make sense to you! Not to be offensive but you are irrelevant in this decision! The people it has to make sense to are the RCs that are converting to Orthodoxy. In the 11+ years I’ve been Orthodox I’ve know 100s of former RCs and NONE have expressed any problems with this. I converted from Catholicism as did my sister and neither of us have any issues with this. Catholics converting to Orthodoxy are the ones this has to make sense to not anyone else.

Edit: I want to add that Orthodox view Catholics as Christians even if they view their Baptisms as incomplete. I’ve never herd any Orthodox say Catholics are not Christians!

 

[josie_L]

Eikonomia is not used the same across the board. I’m not sure why your not getting this?? ALL non-Orthodox baptisms are not complete and SOME Bishops choose to re-Baptize and others choose to correct the deficiencies through Chrismation. So what? Thats a Bishops prerogative and its Eikonomia!

It’s not eikonomia I have a problem with, it’s the fact that you have no uniformity amongst Catholic converts to the faith in that you have some being baptized while others are being chrismated. What is the reason behind some Catholics being baptized, and what is the reason behind some Catholics being chrismated? Does it make sense to you to say to one Roman Catholic that he needs to be baptized (even though he received sacraments similar to that of the next RC) while another is told by the Bishop that he only needs to be Chrismated? There is a wishy washiness to it all that defies tradition. Moreover, bishops shouldn’t have the prerogative to do away with tradition if that tradition tells them they shouldn’t be baptizing Latins? Here is something I found while reading up on re-baptism and Orthodoxy (this is an article written by archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin):

The views and witness of St. Mark of Ephesus were very important for the future legislation of the Orthodox Church concerning the rite with which those Latins coming into the Orthodox Church would be received. His opinion was upheld by the Council of the four Eastern Patriarchs meeting in Constantinople in 1484 that decreed that Latins that come into Orthodoxy were not to be re-baptized. This view of St. Mark of Ephesus that Latins coming into Orthodoxy should not be re-baptized, was also upheld by the Great Moscow Council in 1667. This will be discussed in detail in the next chapter of our essay.

The 1484 Council in Constantinople is also credited with formulating the rite about how to receive Latins into Orthodoxy. Notwithstanding the two forced Unias — Lyons and Florence, notwithstanding the evil acts of the Latins in Constantinople (I guess he forgot about the Massacre of the Latins in the late 12th century by the Greeks) as well as in the Holy Mountain of Athos (to which the Athos Paterikon is a witness[40]), the holy Orthodox Church, through the words of St. Mark of Ephesus and the Fathers of the 1484 Council in Constantinople, along with previous prominent canonists, acknowledged that to bring Latins (Roman Catholics) into the Orthodox Church, it is sufficient for them to renounce their heretical views, to confess the Orthodox Faith and to promise loyalty to her until the end of their lives. Their actual reception into Orthodoxy is performed through the rite of chrismation.

We have demonstrated that the Universal Orthodox Church instituted canons which were infused with tolerance towards those who, seeking the salvation of their souls, came into Orthodoxy, leaving behind and rejecting their error. The Holy Church received them. Where possible, the Church accepted their baptism and recognized it as valid, even though it was performed in environs outside the Orthodox Church. The Church taught the need to follow the rules that were built upon the wisdom and strength of Orthodoxy as expressed through the words of the fourth century Fathers (St. Basil the Great and the Fathers of the Laodicean Council)[41] and consistently through the end of the fifteenth century through the words of St. Mark of Ephesus and the four Eastern Patriarchs gathered at a Council in Constantinople in 1484, as well as the authority of the Second and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils.[42]

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html

As to the statement below, I think you should understand why it is relevant to me and to others, it makes no sense to baptize Catholics and/or Christians validly baptized in the trinitarian form (please read the article in full to get a better understanding of what I mean).

The simplest answer to this is it does not have to make sense to you! Not to be offensive but you are irrelevant in this decision! The people it has to make sense to are the RCs that are converting to Orthodoxy. In the 11+ years I’ve been Orthodox I’ve know 100s of former RCs and NONE have expressed any problems with this. I converted from Catholicism as did my sister and neither of us have any issues with this. Catholics converting to Orthodoxy are the ones this has to make sense to not anyone else.

Edit: I want to add that Orthodox view Catholics as Christians even if they view their Baptisms as incomplete. I’ve never herd any Orthodox say Catholics are not Christians!

If Catholics are being baptized into Orthodoxy this means that our baptisms whatever you or others may say is invalid, and therefore without a valid baptism we are not saved!!

 

[josie_L]

The Canon of St. Basil and those of St. Cyprian and his Synod were incorporated into Eastern canon law–centuries before the 1054 schism.

St. Cyprian views were extreme, here is an excerpt taken from an Orthodox website (it includes conciliar and ecumenical canons delineating the views of the Church):

Christianity saw no small number of heresies during the 3rd and 4th centuries, and the originators of the heresies were bishops or prominent presbyters. How to treat those who came to Orthodoxy from those heresies? By what method should they be received? There was an immediate difference of views about this problem within the Orthodox Church. Some insisted that they be received only through baptism, i.e., not to recognize their previous baptism as valid even though it was correct in form (i.e., corresponding to the baptism performed in the Orthodox Church). Others maintained a more tolerant view, accepting as valid that baptism, which was performed by some heretics, since it was performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, and did not require that those coming into Orthodoxy from heresy be re-baptized. A stricter line was taken by Tertullian (himself a Montanist), St. Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian of Caesarea, and Elanus of Tarsus. St. Cyprian, a proponent of the strict line, convoked two councils in this matter (255-256) and insisted that heretics be received by no other way than baptism. St. Stephen, Pope of Rome (253-257) could be considered to hold a more tolerant view, and his position, according to the famous Hefele, was supported by Eastern bishops. At the same time as St. Cyprian along with a council of 71 bishops insisted that heretics lack any grace and for this reason their sacred acts are invalid, Pope St. Stephen received penitent heretics with the laying of a bishop’s hand on their heads. He did this in accord with the tolerant practice, which was held by other Western bishops. We read an ancient decree of the Council in Arles (Canon 8):

“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 [in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum] he shall have hands laid upon him only so that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if he was not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, let him be baptized.”[18]

Having learned about the decrees of the Council in Carthage under St. Cyprian’s chairmanship, which demanded the re-baptism of heretics coming into the Church, at first Pope St. Stephen demanded a repeal of these decrees, threatening excommunication and, since the repeals did not take place, he later excommunicated St. Cyprian.[19]

It is interesting to note that Eastern canonists treat the decisions of the Carthage councils critically. Thus, Zonaras commenting on Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, which calls for the reception of certain kinds of heretics without re-baptism, notes the decree of St. Cyprian, about which he says:

“Thus, the opinions of the Fathers gathered at the council with the great Cyprian do not refer to all heretics and all schismatics. Because the Second Ecumenical Council, as we just pointed out, makes an exception for certain heretics and grants its sanction for their reception without repeating the baptism, demanding only their anointing with the Holy Chrism provided that they renounced their own heresies and all other heresies.”

Balsamon calls the decrees of the Council at Carthage “not mandatory and as such ineffective.”[20]

Given this evidence, our analysis shows that in the third and the first part of the fourth centuries there were two different practices for the reception of heretics and schismatics into the Orthodox Church: one through re-baptism and the other through repentance. However, the Orthodox Church, being always merciful, tended to lean towards the more lenient view.

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html

The article also speaks of St. Basil the Great, and his view as was understood by the Church and applied in the 6th ecumenical council, here is an excerpt,

It should be acknowledged that with the words of St. Basil the Great and of the Fathers of the Laodicean Council the Church determined a path for further ecumenical legislation, namely — that the decrees (or canons) of the Church be motivated by the spirit of toleration and with a view towards the common benefit of the Orthodox Church. But, in the noted decree of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and prior to that in the canons of St. Basil the Great and the local council in Laodicea) the following is also evident: that the holy Church accepted as genuine that baptism which was done in the name of the Holy Trinity even though the baptism took place outside of the Orthodox Church, but in all respects corresponded to that baptism which was performed by the Orthodox. In such a case it is accepted as genuine and effective upon the reception of the convert into the Orthodox Church by way of repentance and chrismation. . . Had the holy Orthodox Church doubted the genuineness of such a baptism then there is no question that it would ever subject that person, who comes to her for the sake of the salvation of his soul, to the danger of remaining without baptism, the greatest of sacraments, being motivated by pastoral condescension towards heretics and schismatics, on the basis of economy (i.e., for the general welfare of the Church), i.e., undertaking a compromise at the price of the salvation of that person’s soul who entrusts the Church with the salvation of his soul! Baptism is the fundamental sacrament of the Church without which one cannot be saved.

 

[Hesychios]

I personally could never make such a jump though if told I needed to be baptized again, and frankly, even though I have very seriously thought about the Orthodox Church, unless that issue was settled uniformly it is not something that can be considered

I realize that you are troubled, and there is literally nothing I can say to comfort you if you are stuck on this.

A lot of people come to Holy Orthodoxy through other Christian backgrounds. Accepting a baptism is not to deny that you have been in your heart a Christian, it is only to say that you have not been an Orthodox Christian.

Clearly if something like this bothers you, you were not yet seriously considering Holy Orthodoxy. If you truly wanted to be Orthodox and were ready, you would not let anything stand in the way.

Wait a minute…a convert to Orthodoxy must be rebaptized in order to be accepted?

Really?

One must be willing to be baptized if converting. Perhaps the first thing one has to let go of is pride.

It is up to the bishop as to whether one would be baptized, Chrismated or otherwise at his sole discretion.

 

[TheosisM]

That is not true, there are many Orthodox who believe that the baptism of other Christians are valid, i.e., they do not have to be baptized upon entering Orthodoxy (please read my above post).

This is incorrect. Not baptizing Orthodox converts is not an indirect way of saying that their baptism is valid. As Harpazo and others have stated, whatever method that is used to receive a convert (baptism, chrismation, etc) “makes up” for the deficiencies of the “heterodox” sacraments. It is not saying that the non-Orthodox sacraments are valid, but the bishop decides to use either baptism or chrismation to “make up” for the deficiencies. The consistent position of Orthodoxy is that it only knows that sacraments within its Church are valid, and makes no comments as to the validity of sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church. Eikonomia will always make up for the deficiencies of heterodox sacraments, and receiving someone by baptism or chrismation is not a statement on the validity of the non-Orthodox baptism or chrismation/confirmation. I assume that chrismation or baptism in Orthodoxy will “make up” for the deficient baptismal graces, if they are not there.

 

[jimmy]

I know what baptism is though. And it is not an indignity for a Catholic to have to be baptized again, it is a slap in the face. It is saying Catholics are not Christians in the first place. While it is certainly your churches right to say that, and believe that, it still hurts.

It is no more of a slap in the face than Catholics telling Mormons they don’t have a valid baptism, or telling protestants they don’t have a valid Eucharist. The question is whether the Orthodox or the Catholic position is correct on the relationship between Christ and the world. Are the sacraments an act of the Church or is it irrelevant who performs them? The Orthodox Church generally believes that all sacraments are in relation to the orthodox bishops. Apart from the bishop there is no baptism, chrismation, Eucharist, ordination or any other sacrament. Only the bishop and those he approves (the clergy) can minister the sacraments. And in this way you can see the unity and catholicity of the Church. All men recieve the sacraments through the Church. There is no division; rather all men are called to communion with the bishop in the body of Christ.

The Catholic Church on the other hand argues that the sacraments are confected by Christ. Therefore as long as a person has the proper intent and they use the Trinitarian formula the baptism will be valid,even if the person administering it is a pagan or even an atheist.

There is no reason to get offended. First, there is nothing offensive about what is being sid. Second, to pull the ‘offended’ card is an attempt to manipulate the discussion. It is an attempt to manipulate peoples feelings.

 

[Nine_Two]

I never said that we must abide by a local Western council but that this council is in some ways a reflection of what the Church Universal believed, i.e., a council that is as vociferous in stating no rebaptism must be to an extent towing the line, for the simple fact that uniformity must be adhered to throughout the Church (by the way I gave many examples of how Church tradition allowed for converts who were validly baptized in the Trinitarian form through laying on of hands). Furthermore, you did not argue my point, i.e., that there is no uniform Church teaching/practice within the Orthodox community with respect to receiving converts into Orthodoxy (some Catholics are baptized while others are not). This makes no sense whatsoever, and is not a reflection of the Church pre-schism.

You most certainly did argue that we are bound by the decisions of a local council in the West.

We shall have a council shortly which will hopefully answer these questions. You’ll have to forgive us if the last 500 years weren’t all that nice to us.

 

[Nine_Two]

No. We do not declare a Baptist is not Christian. That is false. IF we make a Baptist get baptized, it is because either there is no proof of baptism, (no paper trail) or there is question that it was not preformed with a trinitarian formula because of the person wishing to enter the Church cannot remember the details.

You do make Baptists get rebaptised, as they don’t baptise using the trinitarian formula. Therefore by your logic you are saying they are not Christian.

 

[jlhargus]

Our understanding is that all Bishops are successors of St. Peter, and while Rome holds a Petrine office (note a, not the), that does not give it any sort of special powers.

Historically Rome did have certain perogatives granted to it, but that had nothing to do with St. Peter, just as the perogatives granted to Constantinople and Jerusalem had nothing to do with St. Andrew or St. James.

JL: Sorry about being late in answering, I didn’t think this line would go more than a few hours.

I would really like to know how you see all bishops as successors of St Peter. I don’t understand what you mean or how that works.

 

[jlhargus]

The office and authority of St. Peter cannot be shared (it is a unique office with unique charisms attached to it), however that being said the Pope does work in tandem with the magisterium (his brother bishops). Moreover, the Church does not decide doctrine on a majority vote, if that were the case we would be Arians today.

JL: Maybe I should have said, “Is there a possibility of the office being shared”, as I don’t know. I haven’t seen any theological discussion on the subject. The reason I brought it up was, some years back, I read an article in a good Catholic magazine, can’t remember which. I remembered it as being in Ut Unum Sint, I did scan it but did not find it there. So the article may have been the same time as Ut Unum Sint. Long story short, John Paul II writing or speaking to a group of Orthodox clergy said, he was willing to discuss and throw open any subject including the office of Peter and how it might function to bring about union. I’m not quoting anything or anyone I’m just saying what struck me when I read the article and the thought I came away with was it could be shared.

But on a personal opinion level only, I don’t see why, and I might add I prefer only one person. The pope is not ordained a pope, but appointed to an office, as I see it the office carries with it those unique chrisms. For instance when a bishop is ordained he receives and keeps those chrisms even if he resigns. If a pope resigns, there has been at lest one, it seems to me he would not take with him the chrisms of the office as he was not sealed with those gifts as in ordination. I am not saying this is correct, maybe it has already been settled by a council or pope, I don’t know. Just food for thought.

 

[John_Larocque]

"The office and authority of St. Peter cannot be shared "

That is a post-Chalcedonian understanding. The pre-Chalcedonian position of the Bishops of Rome, is that the Petrine ministry was shared across Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (the three Petrine sees, from their P.O.V.). Rome was pre-emininent, because of its place as the city of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul, and was “first among equals.” Hiowever, it was the UNITY of the three sees that defined Petrine pre-eminence.

This is, in some respects, a narrower understanding of Cyrprian’s unity of the episcopate, which was also called the “Chair of Peter.”

 

[josie_L]

This is incorrect. Not baptizing Orthodox converts is not an indirect way of saying that their baptism is valid. As Harpazo and others have stated, whatever method that is used to receive a convert (baptism, chrismation, etc) “makes up” for the deficiencies of the “heterodox” sacraments. It is not saying that the non-Orthodox sacraments are valid, but the bishop decides to use either baptism or chrismation to “make up” for the deficiencies. The consistent position of Orthodoxy is that it only knows that sacraments within its Church are valid, and makes no comments as to the validity of sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church. Eikonomia will always make up for the deficiencies of heterodox sacraments, and receiving someone by baptism or chrismation is not a statement on the validity of the non-Orthodox baptism or chrismation/confirmation. I assume that chrismation or baptism in Orthodoxy will “make up” for the deficient baptismal graces, if they are not there.

Then can you explain this to me:

We have demonstrated that the Universal Orthodox Church instituted canons which were infused with tolerance towards those who, seeking the salvation of their souls, came into Orthodoxy, leaving behind and rejecting their error. The Holy Church received them. **Where possible, the Church accepted their baptism and recognized it as valid, even though it was performed in environs outside the Orthodox Church. **The Church taught the need to follow the rules that were built upon the wisdom and strength of Orthodoxy as expressed through the words of the fourth century Fathers (St. Basil the Great and the Fathers of the Laodicean Council)[41] and consistently through the end of the fifteenth century through the words of St. Mark of Ephesus and the four Eastern Patriarchs gathered at a Council in Constantinople in 1484, as well as the authority of the Second and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils.[42]

holy-trinity.org/ecclesio…ption-ch1.html

and can you explain this:

"The rite for the reception of Latins into the Orthodox Church was now completely changed. It is known that in accordance with Patriarch Philaret Nikitich’s Conciliar Statute, Latins were re-baptized in Russia. Even though at the time of Patriarch Nikon, upon the insistence of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, who was then in Moscow, it was twice decreed at the Council that Latins would not be re-baptized in the future, the deeply rooted custom of re-baptizing remained in practice. This is why Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich proposed that the Great Council should discuss and make a decision on this question. The Council fathers carefully reviewed Patriarch Philaret Nikitich’s statute and came to the conclusion that the laws were incorrectly interpreted and applied to the Latins. They then referred to earlier Council statutes whereby it was forbidden to re-baptize even Arians and Macedonians in the event of their coming into Orthodoxy, and even more so, the fathers said, Latins must not be re-baptized. They referred to the Council of the four Eastern Patriarchs held in Constantinople in 1484, which decreed not to re-baptize Latins upon their coming into Orthodoxy, but only to anoint them with Chrism, and which even composed the actual rite for their reception into the Church. They referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching and decreed:

‘Latins must not be re-baptized but only after their renunciation of their heresies and confession of sins, be anointed with Chrism and admit them to the Holy Mysteries and in this way bring them into communion with the holy, catholic Eastern Church, in accordance with the sacred canons (Chapter 6)’."[64]

Since 1718 the Spiritual Council [Synod] decreed not to re-baptize Protestants who were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.[65] From that time the Russian Church never returned to the re-baptism of Latins, Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists. **Later the Russian Church decreed that confirmed Roman Catholics and chrismated Armenians be received by the third rite, i.e., through confession and repudiation of heresy. **Lutherans, Calvinists and other Protestants who were baptized by triple immersion (or by pouring), to be received by the second rite, i.e., by chrismation and repudiation of heresy. They were chrismated because in the first place they do not have such a sacrament and secondly, they do not have a priesthood based on apostolic succession. Anglicans and Episcopalians are likewise received through the second rite because it is questionable (as Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow wrote) whether their church has preserved apostolic succession.

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch2.html

The fact that Catholics are being rebaptized into Orthodoxy (inconsistently I might add because for some reason others are just confirmed), means that the Orthodox are not adhering to their own traditions, i.e., they should not be re-baptizing Catholics (nor for that matter chrismating them).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ziapueblo,

I know that the Catholic Church will never abandon the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. However, when it comes to this particular Dogma, is there a possibility of bending it some, not breaking and snapping it, just bending it a little?

Take a look at these two threads, which seems to address your question:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=382686&highlight=clarification

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=381885&highlight=clarification

If you have any comments, perhaps you can resurrect the threads by adding your comments there.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

The fact that Catholics are being re-baptized into Orthodoxy (inconsistently I might add because for some reason others are just confirmed), means that the Orthodox are not adhering to their own traditions, i.e., they should not be re-baptizing Catholics (nor for that matter chrismating them).

Josie, you know very well that the Roman Church has innovated the faith, and that acceptance back into the original Orthodox Faith requires a solution.

Nobody who has undertaken this journey back to their mother Church has questioned the Baptism, or the Economia Chrismation requirement.

Rather they have welcomed it and gone with it.

When you are ready to surrender your faith to the Orthodox Church - maybe you can then legitimately question it. But do not disrespect the practice of the Orthodox Church by constantly arguing it is disrespectful.

It is not.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

I used to welcome my Orthodox baptism,but if i realise that Councils have decided that Latins need not be baptised again then id rather punch the priest who did it to me in the head,and if that bothers anyone Bad Luck

I said to him afterwards as i was disturbed about it,“Father ive read that a person should only be baptised once” he said in his broken Greek ,‘ah for me the Pope is nothing’

Does Mark Evgenicos’s statement about not baptizing Latins mean anything to the modern Orthodox Bishops or has that become outdated??

Josie L ,that illuminater page about baptism is posted by more "Traditional Genuine 'they call themselves Orthodox Churches which have seperated from the mainstream Orthodox Churches.

As you read those guys are much more strict with their Orthodoxy.