Catholic/Orthodox unity

[brigantine]

**I have never encountered such a thing as an Old Calendrist in Australia - and know of not a single Church adhering to this view.

To pronounce schism on the basis of a man made disciplinary rule, with no scriptural or theological basis to my mind is just silly.**

I think its just a terminology issue. I’m not talking about and I do not believe Nine_Two is talking about Orthodox such as the Moscow, Serbian, Jerusalem, Patriarchates. These are are Orthodox Churches on the old calendar that are in communion with all of Orthodoxy. Its the groups that use the old calendar, and other, issues to deny communion to other Orthodox Churches that are the schismatic. They have walled themselves off from the Orthodox Church so they are in schism from her.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

We have no belief that one may not be rechristmated, and it has traditionally been the method by which those who are Baptised but embraced heresy are brought back into the faith.

That is very interesting. I guess it makes sense when using the term “chrismation” – anointing with the “chrism” holy oil. In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the term “confirmation” is used to denote that the faithful receiving the sacrament, being of the age of discretion (normally about seven, although national conferences of bishops can set a different age), is being “confirmed” in the faith. Because the Catholic Church believes that this sacrament marks the recipient permanently, it cannot be received more than once.

In fact the service for Christmation alone seems to work on the principle that the one doing it **has been a member of the Church before emphasis **[emphasis mine], with the opening portion having them stand by and renounce heresy, as opposed to the Baptismal service which focuses on the acceptance of Christ (although the Creed is recited at both services).

This statement seems to confirm that receiving Catholic converts through chrismation is based on the assumption that their baptism is not only valid, but that they are somehow a part of the Church (even if not in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches). While the justification for this is often addressed as referring to the principle of economia, I wonder if economia even applies since chrismating someone who have been validly baptized is not an exception based on pastoral concerns, but the correct thing to do (that, of course, assuming that chrismation/confirmation is a sacrament/mystery that can be received more than once).

 

[Nine_Two]

**I have never encountered such a thing as an Old Calendrist in Australia - and know of not a single Church adhering to this view.

To pronounce schism on the basis of a man made disciplinary rule, with no scriptural or theological basis to my mind is just silly.**

I know of a few here in Canada (All from the internet though, never seen such a church personally, or met someone who took the view). One of the monestaries on Mt. Athos also had its monks expelled because they had become Old Calanderists and refused to obey the EP as long as he was in communion with those using the New Calander. There probably are some in Australia,

I quite agree with you that breaking communion over practice like that is quite silly, and I think most people do think it is a silly thing for them to start a fight over. However they did do it.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Greetings,

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?

I remember listening to Catholic Answers a couple of weeks ago with guest Kenneth Whitehead. I believe he addressed this question but I missed his answer.

Thanks and God bless,
ZP

Who knows. Perhaps the two churches will band together to ward off an alien invasion?

 

[Nine_Two]

That is very interesting. I guess it makes sense when using the term “chrismation” – anointing with the “chrism” holy oil. In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the term “confirmation” is used to denote that the faithful receiving the sacrament, being of the age of discretion (normally about seven, although national conferences of bishops can set a different age), is being “confirmed” in the faith. Because the Catholic Church believes that this sacrament marks the recipient permanently, it cannot be received more than once.

Actually if you look through the Canons of the Church (from the Ecumenical Councils) you’ll find that nearly every time a heresy is anathematised, christmation is mentioned as the way by which people may be rejoined. There are a few exceptions, where confession is all that is required.

This statement seems to confirm that receiving Catholic converts through chrismation is based on the assumption that their baptism is not only valid, but that they are somehow a part of the Church (even if not in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches). While the justification for this is often addressed as referring to the principle of economia, I wonder if economia even applies since chrismating someone who have been validly baptized is not an exception based on pastoral concerns, but the correct thing to do (that, of course, assuming that chrismation/confirmation is a sacrament/mystery that can be received more than once).

The problem is you’re looking at it at terms of validity and invalidity. We don’t, we do say some are most certainly not valid (Good luck finding a Bishop who will allow someone baptised “In the name of Jesus” to enter the Church without an Orthodox Baptism), but for others we simply rely on the grace of God to make up for any shortcomings in previous baptisms. Additionally the point at which a baptism is accepted as good enough or not is up to the bishop. My bishop says anyone who has been baptised using the trinitarian formula (except Mormons and others who interpret it completely differently) only needs Christmation, another bishop could say everyone needs it.
I’m not sure if that makes much sense, but basically we plead ignorence on the matter and ask God to correct any errors which may occur (whether it be someone receiving an unnecessary second baptism, or someone being a faithful christian without having undergone a “valid” baptism).

 

[spn82756]

We have no belief that one may not be rechristmated, and it has traditionally been the method by which those who are Baptised but embraced heresy are brought back into the faith. In fact the service for Christmation alone seems to work on the principle that the one doing it has been a member of the Church before, with the opening portion having them stand by and renounce heresy, as opposed to the Baptismal service which focuses on the acceptance of Christ (although the Creed is recited at both services).

So…it’s not really baptism. It’s a rejection of so called “heresy”. I’m glad you’ve cleared that up for us. Unfortunately…I’m going to lump this in with your understanding of the Eucharist as posted earlier…then refuted by fellow Orthodox.

 

[Nine_Two]

So…it’s not really baptism. It’s a rejection of so called “heresy”. I’m glad you’ve cleared that up for us. Unfortunately…I’m going to lump this in with your understanding of the Eucharist as posted earlier…then refuted by fellow Orthodox.

No, Chrismation isn’t baptism. I’m not sure where you got a foolish idea like that. I’m also not sure why you bothered to read and reply to me if you’re going to dismiss everything I say out of hand because I happened to be incorrect on that one thing that one time. You’re quite an unforgiving person. Oh well, your issue, not mine.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Actually if you look through the Canons of the Church (from the Ecumenical Councils) you’ll find that nearly every time a heresy is anathematised, christmation is mentioned as the way by which people may be rejoined. There are a few exceptions, where confession is all that is required.

Thank you for the clarification. I think I’m going to spend some time going over these councils and how heretics were brought back into the Church before I comment further.

I’m not sure if that makes much sense, but basically we plead ignorence on the matter and ask God to correct any errors which may occur (whether it be someone receiving an unnecessary second baptism, or someone being a faithful christian without having undergone a “valid” baptism).

For all intend and purposes, this second baptism is what the Catholics call a “conditional baptism”, which basically means that because there is doubts on the validity of the first baptism, if the first one was indeed valid the second one doesn’t really count. If the first one was not valid, the second one then confers all the graces associated with the sacrament.

 

[spn82756]

No, Chrismation isn’t baptism. I’m not sure where you got a foolish idea like that. I’m also not sure why you bothered to read and reply to me if you’re going to dismiss everything I say out of hand because I happened to be incorrect on that one thing that one time. You’re quite an unforgiving person. Oh well, your issue, not mine.

Okay…I was hard on you…and I apologize.

I believe that you said that being re-baptized in the Orthodox Church was not really being baptized again…but a renunciation of heresy.

Again…I apologize for the remark. The fact is that I have great respect for the Orthodox Church.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Actually if you look through the Canons of the Church (from the Ecumenical Councils) you’ll find that nearly every time a heresy is anathematised, christmation is mentioned as the way by which people may be rejoined.

Reading over your statement again got me thinking. When we (Catholics) baptize we use the Holy Chrism consecrated by the bishop, but we wouldn’t call that “chrismation”. We use the same chrism when we confirm and, strictly speaking, we could call this sacrament “chrismation”. I wonder if these “heretics” being received into the Church were chrismated as in being anointed with chrism or being crismated as in receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation again. Anyone knows how does Eastern Catholic Churches receive converts into the Church?

 

[josie_L]

But in reality it’s none of their business unless they want to be Orthodox too, and if they cannot accept this, they are simply not ready.

Well, according to the council of Arles you should be concerned about certain members/dioceses of the Orthodox Community who were/are re-baptizing Christians who believe and were baptized in the Trinitarian form:

9 (8). Concerning the Africans who use their own special law in that they practice rebaptism, it is resolved that if any come to the church from heresy, they question him on the creed (used at his baptism), and if they consider him to have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him only receive the laying on of hands so that he receive the Holy Spirit; but if when questioned he does not solemnly confess this Trinity, let him be baptized.

http&&&www.fourthcentury.com/old/Councils/Arles314/cs314.htm

 

[Nine_Two]

Okay…I was hard on you…and I apologize.

I believe that you said that being re-baptized in the Orthodox Church was not really being baptized again…but a renunciation of heresy.

Again…I apologize for the remark. The fact is that I have great respect for the Orthodox Church.

Apology accepted.

But no, being “rebaptised” in the Orthodox Church is indeed a full baptism, however Chrismation is the proper form for dealing with those Orthodox who ave fallen into heresy, and is often used with people coming over from other Churches who practice a trinitarian baptism.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, according to the council of Arles you should be concerned about certain members/dioceses of the Orthodox Community who were/are re-baptizing Christians who believe and were baptized in the Trinitarian form:

9 (8). Concerning the Africans who use their own special law in that they practice rebaptism, it is resolved that if any come to the church from heresy, they question him on the creed (used at his baptism), and if they consider him to have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him only receive the laying on of hands so that he receive the Holy Spirit; but if when questioned he does not solemnly confess this Trinity, let him be baptized.

http&&&www.fourthcentury.com/old/Councils/Arles314/cs314.htm

That was a local council and its decrees on practice are not binding on other local Churches. You would also do well to note that the Catholic Church doesn’t follow those canons any more than we do.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

That was a local council and its decrees on practice are not binding on other local Churches.

I completely agree. The Council of Arles (314) was a local council held in Arles (south of Roman Gaul, modern France), which did not represent the entire Church and is, therefore, not binding on the universal Church (certainly not on the East), although representatives of the West were present and the canons approved were sent afterwards to Pope Sylvester (he did not participate). The council was also called by no other than Emperor Constantine.

You would also do well to note that the Catholic Church doesn’t follow those canons any more than we do.

I never thought of it that way. While many of the council’s canons were later included in other councils, I guess the Catholic Church does not abide by this council per se. One thing that stands out in my mind from Josie’s quote is the following:

…it is resolved that if any come to the church from heresy, they question him on the creed (used at his baptism), and if they consider him to have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him only receive the laying on of hands so that he receive the Holy Spirit [emphasis added]…

If by “laying on of hands” to “receive the Holy Spirit” they meant the Sacrament of Confirmation (Chrismation), then the Eastern practice of receiving converts by chrismation (or re-confirmation) would not only be appropriate, but would indicate that the Catholic teaching that confirmation can only be validly received once would not be in line with Church tradition.

 

[Nine_Two]

I never thought of it that way. While many of the council’s canons were later included in other councils, I guess the Catholic Church does not abide by this council per se. One thing that stands out in my mind from Josie’s quote is the following:

In particular I actually thought that when I read that it said Actors could not be part of the Catholic fellowship. There are a lot of Catholic actors out there who don’t seem to have issues with being accepted at Communion (And it’s probably an even more lewd profession now than it was then).

If by “laying on of hands” to “receive the Holy Spirit” they meant the Sacrament of Confirmation (Chrismation), then the Eastern practice of receiving converts by chrismation (or re-confirmation) would not only be appropriate, but would indicate that the Catholic teaching that confirmation can only be validly received once would not be in line with Church tradition.

I’m curious how the Catholic Church accepts people who come from other traditions whose baptism is recognised? I know the Orthodox can pretty much just go and start taking communion, but what about Lutherans for example? Don’t they go through Confermation, even though they also do the same thing in their own church?

 

[Ad_Gentes]

I’m curious how the Catholic Church accepts people who come from other traditions whose baptism is recognised? I know the Orthodox can pretty much just go and start taking communion, but what about Lutherans for example? Don’t they go through Confermation, even though they also do the same thing in their own church?

Converts are usually (although not always) received into the Church in Easter Vigil. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are received by making a Profession of Faith. Protestants are received by Confirmation (Chrismation) if their Baptism is deemed valid. If their Baptism is deemed invalid (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.), then they are baptized and confirmed/chrismated. All also receive Holy Communion. For those already validly baptized, the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) is administered prior to receiving the other Sacraments of Initiation.

Now to your specific question; Lutherans are considered validly baptized according to the Catholic Church. However, since they do not have valid Holy Orders (and thus valid ordained Bishops), their sacraments are not considered valid (including Confirmation). They are therefore confirmed and communed when received into the Church; they same goes for others such as Anglicans. They were once considered just a brake away (schismatic) church from the Roman Catholic Church and their Holy Order considered valid (and all other sacraments such as Confirmation, the Eucharist, etc.). They were even thought by the Catholic Church to have Apostolic Succession. At some point in history, due to changes in the Anglican Church, doubts on the validity of their Holy Orders made all other sacraments (except for Baptism and Holy Matrimony) presumably invalid. For that reason, Anglican clergy received into the Catholic Church are not only confirmed, but also ordained if they are accepted into the Catholic clergy (Orthodox clergy are never re-ordained when received into the Catholic Church).

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[josie_L]

That was a local council and its decrees on practice are not binding on other local Churches. You would also do well to note that the Catholic Church doesn’t follow those canons any more than we do.

How could it not be binding on the whole Church, please re-read the canon:

9 (8). Concerning the Africans who use their own special law in that they practice rebaptism, it is resolved that if any come to the church from heresy, they question him on the creed (used at his baptism), and if they consider him to have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him only receive the laying on of hands so that he receive the Holy Spirit; but if when questioned he does not solemnly confess this Trinity, let him be baptized.

Arles was situated in France and the reference to the Africans was in connection to the Donatists (who believed everyone had to be re-baptized to get into the Church, including lapsed members). According to the bishops presiding these Donatists/Africans (by the way this heresy was in ways brought about by St. Cyprian’s views of re-baptism which Pope St. Stephen repudiated for being an innovation) were in error, i.e., there should be no rebaptism for those who were properly baptized using the Trinitarian form.

This was not an ecumenical council but the fact of the matter is that they were pronouncing their views as such on a heresy in the strictest terms, i.e., "it is resolved that if any come to the church from heresy, they question him on the creed (used at his baptism), and if they consider him to have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him only receive the laying on of hands so that he receive the Holy Spirit.

Edit: The Catholic Church does not re-baptize those members who have been baptized in the Trinitarian form (three persons in one God).

 

[josie_L]

If by “laying on of hands” to “receive the Holy Spirit” they meant the Sacrament of Confirmation (Chrismation), then the Eastern practice of receiving converts by chrismation (or re-confirmation) would not only be appropriate, but would indicate that the Catholic teaching that confirmation can only be validly received once would not be in line with Church tradition.

The canon is talking about re-baptism not re-confirmation, i.e., why do you assume that the Heretics who wished to convert were already confirmed (they may not have believed or practiced the sacrament of Confirmation or “laying on of hands” prior to their conversion)?

 

[Ad_Gentes]

How could it not be binding on the whole Church, please re-read the canon…

This was not an ecumenical council but the fact of the matter is that they were pronouncing their views as such on a heresy in the strictest terms…

The fact that this was not an ecumenical council means that it was not binding on the universal church, regardless of how relevant or appropriate its canons were.

Can. 445 A particular council, for its own territory (emphasis added), takes care that provision is made for the pastoral needs of the people of God and possesses the power of governance, especially legislative power, so that, always without prejudice to the universal law of the Church, it is able to decide what seems opportune for the increase of the faith, the organization of common pastoral action, and the regulation of morals and of the common ecclesiastical discipline which is to be observed, promoted, and protected.

While the Code of Canon Law of 1983 is obviously not applicable to this council of 314, it points out to the fact that local, particular, regional, or provincial councils apply only to their “own territory”.

: The Catholic Church does not re-baptize those members who have been baptized in the Trinitarian form (three persons in one God).

This is partially true. The Catholic Church does not “re-baptize” those who have valid baptisms. When the validity of the baptism is in question, the convert is then conditionally baptized (i.e. re-baptized).

 

[Ad_Gentes]

The canon is talking about re-baptism not re-confirmation, i.e., why do you assume that the Heretics who wished to convert were already confirmed (they may not have believed or practiced the sacrament of Confirmation or “laying on of hands” prior to their conversion)?

While you are right that I cannot be certain that these “heretics” were validly confirmed, there is nothing in this canon that would indicate that they were not. Since it was a practice of the early Church to confirm/chrismate (i.e. “laying on of hands”) immediately after baptism, it is fair to assume at least some of these could have been confirmed already.