Catholic/Orthodox unity

[Madaglan]

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).

It was not only St. Cyprian who held this view but also the vast majority of orthodox bishops of North Africa (a significant number at the time). It too was not an innovation of St. Cyprian or any of the other African bishops. Tertullian, the “father of Latin Christianity,” wrote decades earlier in his work on baptism:

There is to us one, and but one, baptism; as well according to the Lord’s gospel as according to the apostle’s letters, inasmuch as he says, One God, and one baptism, and one church in the heavens. But it must be admitted that the question, What rules are to be observed with regard to heretics? is worthy of being treated. For it is to us that that assertion refers. Heretics, however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of their excommunication testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we have not the same God, nor one— that is, the same— Christ. And therefore their baptism is not one with ours either, because it is not the same; a baptism which, since they have it not duly, doubtless they have not at all; nor is that capable of being counted which is not had. Ecclesiastes 1:15 Thus they cannot receive it either, because they have it not.

source: newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

Note how Tertullian argues that the heretics have a different God and therefore he is not bound to recognize their baptism, which he says is not the same as baptism in the church.

From a local North African council deciding the matter, we still have the individual statements of each bishop regarding his view on why heretics must be baptized in coming into the Church.

All in all, it appears to me that St. Cyprian and the African bishops were simply following the tradition they had received.

On the canon of Arles: “the Africans” likely refers to all African Christians, orthodox and Donatist.

 

[Nine_Two]

How could it not be binding on the whole Church,

This was not an ecumenical council

Answered your own question here. However in your own response I did not notice your answer to why it should be binding on us, if you don’t even follow it to the letter? Maybe I’ll take you seriously that it should be binding on us when Rome stops allowing actors to partake in communion with it.

 

[Madaglan]

Answered your own question here. However in your own response I did not notice your answer to why it should be binding on us, if you don’t even follow it to the letter? Maybe I’ll take you seriously that it should be binding on us when Rome stops allowing actors to partake in communion with it.

Pope John Paul II was an actor in his younger days.

Guess he repented…

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Ad Gentes,

I am sorry that I have come back to this discussion late, but being in China means that my AM’s and PM’s are nearly opposite that of North Americans, so I am often asleep when this forum gets most active.

The reason many Catholics get rattled up about this is because it goes straight into the validity of their own baptism …

I see that on reading further on your questions have been answered properly by Nine_Two. I have very little to add.

I will stress that Chrismation has always been a repeatable sacrament in the east, much as the Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction are. For some reason in the Latin church (and subsequently the eastern Catholic churches I am familiar with) this is no longer (or perhaps never was) the case.

I will say that it is not frequently done, but Orthodox believers sometimes need it.

On the matter of Economia, I think the equivalent term would be a dispensation in the Latin church, my guess is (not certain) most dispensations come from Rome and that would be an expression of the Pope’s own economia, but economia in the east is exercised by every bishop.

 

[prodromos]

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.

This is wholly incorrect. Below is the statement from the Esphigmenou website:The fathers of Esphigmenou struggle against the heresy of ecumenism which states that there is no one church which possesses the Truth. The Orthodox Church believes, as the monks of Esphigmenou Monastery believe, that the Church has never lost the Truth or its unity. The Nicene Creed states the Orthodox Church’s dogmatic basis, “I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I believe in one baptism.” Ecumenism rejects these fundamental truths of the church by teaching that there are many churches and many baptisms.

The beliefs of ecumenism and the beliefs of Orthodoxy are mutually exclusive. You can either believe in the Creed or you can believe in ecumenism, not both. By embracing ecumenism Patriarch Bartholomew has embraced a belief in conflict with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. This is what the monks object to and what they wish to discuss with the Patriarch. There is not a single saint of the Church, ever, who believes in what Patriarch Bartholomew teaches and practices with regards to ecumenism, and this has caused great concern on the part of the monks. The Patriarch refuses to allay those concerns and refuses to engage in constructive dialogue with the monks. He has, however, demanded an apology in writing for questioning him.
There are many letters and articles explaining the stand taken by the monks of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou in the following link.
esphigmenou.com/What%20the%20dispute%20is%20about%20and%20why%20the%20monks%20are%20right/what_the_dispute_is_about_and_wh.htm

John

 

[josie_L]

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.

Ad Gentes, the heretics being refered to in canon 9 are those that were baptized outside of the Church to begin with (hence the interrogation), so again how do we now that they also practiced chrismation just because the early Church practiced baptism/chrismation simultaneously (the council here speaks only of re-baptism)? And like Protestants today, even though the CC affirms that their baptisms are valid (if in the Trinitariam form) no other sacraments are considered as such (we do not believe their holy orders and communion are valid).

p.s. I may be wrong but I believe not all in the Early Church performed baptism/ chrismation simultaneously.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Ad Gentes, the heretics being refered to in canon 9 are those that were baptized outside of the Church to begin with (hence the interrogation), so again how do we now that they also practiced chrismation just because the early Church practiced baptism/chrismation simultaneously (the council here speaks only of re-baptism)?

Josie, there is not enough information from the canon to know either way. Since I am not familiar enough at the moment with the events and individuals surrounding this council, I would prefer not to comment any further on what would be speculations on our part.

And like Protestants today, even though the CC affirms that their baptisms are valid (if in the Trinitariam form) no other sacraments are considered as such (we do not believe their holy orders and communion are valid).

Yes and no. Many schismatic (and even heretic) groups in the first centuries of the Church had apostolic succession and valid holy orders. According to Catholic theology and canon law, their sacraments would have been valid but illicit. Only some, like Protestants, did not have valid holy orders and other appropriate sacraments (i.e. confirmation).

p.s. I may be wrong but I believe not all in the Early Church performed baptism/ chrismation simultaneously.

I do not have the answer to that, but I never said that every local Church in the first centuries of Christianity did so, only that it was a “practice” (and a common one I may add).

Blessings!

 

[josie_L]

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.

Ad Gentes, does it make sense to think that in one area of the Church it was wrong to re-baptize those who were validly baptized (in the Trinitarian form) while others thought otherwise and baptized everyone who came into the Church no exceptions? Does not Ephesians 4:4-6 state we must "be one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all in all? And does not the creed state “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”?

The faith must be the same everywhere (at all times) in the Church, this should include re-baptism. Here is canon 57 from the council of Carthage (419 A.D.):

Canon 57. (Greek lxi.)

That persons baptized when children by the Donatists may be ordained clergymen in the Catholic Church

Since in the former council it was decreed, as your unanimity remembers as well as I do, that those who as children were baptized by the Donatists, and not yet being able to know the pernicious character of their error, and afterward when they had come to the use of reason, had received the knowledge of the truth, abhorred their former error, and were received, (in accordance with the ancient order) by the imposition of the hand, into the Catholic Church of God spread throughout the world, that to such the remembrance of the error ought to be no impediment to the reception of the clerical office. For in coming to faith they thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. **They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: One God, one faith, one baptism, and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. [Those therefore who have been so baptized] having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians . . . **"

newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

And there is also this:

About 348 a synod of Orthodox bishops, who had met to record their gratitude for the effective official repression of the Circumcelliones (Donatists), declared against the rebaptism of any one who had been baptized in the name of the Trinity, and adopted twelve canons of clerical discipline.[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

 

[josie_L]

This is partially true. The Catholic Church does not “re-baptize” those who have valid baptisms.

My statement was true not partially true as you state, because my argument was this: that those who were/are baptized in the trinitarian form were/are not baptized again in the CC, this is not so for every autochephalous Church in the Orthodox community. And even for those who express no re-baptisms for certains Christians, there are some within that community who do, for example:

The bottom line to the article by Metropolitan Khrapovitsky is that heterodox Baptisms have historically been recognized according to the Canons of the Church and may still be so recognized as determined by the Bishop.

For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms normatively performed according to the prescribed form in the following denominations and churches: (a.) Anglican Catholic (b.) Anglican Communion (Church of England, Episcopal, etc.) (c.) Assembly of God (d.) Baptist (e.) Church of the Brethren (f.) Lutheran (g.) Methodist (h.) Moravians (i.) Non-Chalcedonian and Monophysite Churches (j.) Old Catholic (Polish National Catholic Church, Church of Utrecht, Liberal Catholic Church, etc.) (k.) Presbyterian (l.) **Roman Catholic **(m.) United Church of Christ.

This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA). This decision is not called into question nor refuted by any canonical hierarch simply because he personally disagrees with it; instead hierarchs respect the principle of conciliarity and the decisions of other hierarchs made in consideration of the prevalent circumstances within their dioceses and made in concord with the consensus of their synods.

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm

and then compare it to this:

SingleMomMonica:

I was originally baptized in a Protestant Church, when Through RCIA I entered the Catholic Church on an Easter Vigil I was not baptised. Wheb entering the GOC, the bishop accepted the Protestant baptism even though the format of a valid baptism was not done by the Protestants (single immersion, not triple immersion) & the Roman Catholic baptism of my children (triple pouring, not triple immersion) at the request of the priest as the small parish only had an infant size baptismal font. **When I visited the GOC Monasteries, I was told that this must be remedied since I’d never truly been baptised (I had felt this in the inner depths of my being already & was relieved to hear this) and our family was finally Really baptized for the very first time. **

Now, I have been public here about my year living in the sin of leaving the Orthodox Faith. I fell into apostacy by receiving the Sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. When I repented I did not know what to expect. I went to Confession and the priest modified my daily Prayer Rule to include 110 mentanoias (100 bows to the ground & 10 full prostrations) as well as reading Psalm 50 (51 in some Bible translations/versions) that starts out, “Have mercy on me, O God, according to Your great mercy…”

After our apostacy, baptism/chrismation was not required because I had been validly baptized in an Orthodox Monastery.

 

[josie_L]

When the validity of the baptism is in question, the convert is then conditionally baptized (i.e. re-baptized).

If and when the validity of the baptism is in question within the CC, i.e., was not baptized in the Trinitarian form and/or no record of the baptism in question, then yes, they would be baptized, but this is not re-baptism because they were never never validly baptized to begin with (or there is no evidence that they were validly baptized). The CC would not baptize those that they knew to be baptized in the Trinitarian form.

 

[josie_L]

It was not only St. Cyprian who held this view but also the vast majority of orthodox bishops of North Africa (a significant number at the time). It too was not an innovation of St. Cyprian or any of the other African bishops.

Yes, it was an innovation as is attested by the canons I quoted and moreover:

The key figure in the vexing dispute over rebaptism was the bishop of Carthage, the great writer St. Cyprian. . . There were a number of converts coming into the Church from heresy. Now if these were lapsed Catholics, they were absolved and given penance. But what if they were pagans who had been baptized by heretics? St. Cyprian firmly believed that they must be rebaptized and, being Cyprian, loudly proclaimed it. For, said Cyprian, outside the Church baptism is simply not valid. Cyprian held a council of African bishops in 255 and this council approved Cyprian’s view. He sent the decisions of the council on to Pope Stephen.

The Pope refused to approve. In his answer to Cyprian, Stephen took the stand that tradition was sacred. In often quoted words Stephen said, “Let there be no innovation beyond what has been handed down.” In other words, as supreme guardian of Christian tradition, Stephen refused to recognize Cyprian’s theory and practice as truly Christian.

. . . . Soon the persecution of Valerian ended the lives of both principals. As usual the Roman doctrine finally prevailed. By the end of the century all Africa was in accord with Rome in this matter, and the dissident dioceses of Asia followed somewhat later.

cfpeople.org/Books/pope/POPEp23.htm

I have already shown that re-baptism of converts who were validly baptized in the Trinitarian form was wrong and against the sacred traditions of the Church, therefore whatever Tertullian said on the matter is null and void.

Tertullian, the “father of Latin Christianity,” wrote decades earlier in his work on baptism:

source: newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

Note how Tertullian argues that the heretics have a different God and therefore he is not bound to recognize their baptism, which he says is not the same as baptism in the church.

From a local North African council deciding the matter, we still have the individual statements of each bishop regarding his view on why heretics must be baptized in coming into the Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

So if we have to follow that, why don’t Catholics have to follow the prohibitions against actors? You still haven’t answered that. Why are we picking and choosing which canons of that council we follow?

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Originally Posted by Ad Gentes

Josie, please read again the statement that I made and you quoted in your response. I never said that it made sense to re-baptize those already validly baptized. I also did not say that the faith could be different throughout the Church. What I did say was that since “this was not an ecumenical council…it was not binding on the universal church, regardless of how relevant or appropriate its canons were.” This is not my opinion but what the Church teaches. Can. 337 §1 of the Code of Canon Law, for example, states the following concerning ecumenical councils:

The college of bishops exercises power offer [sic] the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council (emphasis added).

This canon implicitly states that only through an ecumenical council, can the bishops exercise power over the universal Church.

Can. 341 §1:

The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

This canon is pretty straight forward; because ecumenical councils apply to the universal Church, the Pope must approve its canons.

Now lets review a few canons regarding particular or local councils starting with Can. 432 §1:

The provincial council and the metropolitan possess authority in an ecclesiastical province according to the norm of law (emphasis added).

From this canon it is clear that provincial councils only have authority over their province or territory.

Can. 439 §1:

A plenary council, that is, one for all the particular churches of the same conference of bishops (emphasis added), is to be celebrated whenever it seems necessary or useful to the conference of bishops, with the approval of the Apostolic See.

Here the local council within a national territory under the conference of bishops is referred as a plenary council. Because conferences of bishops only have authority over their territories, it is implied that a plenary council also have authority over such territory.

Can. 445 (again):

A particular council, for its own territory, 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 (emphasis added).

This canon explains that particular (i.e. local) councils apply to “its own territory”. It also explain that particular councils cannot make decisions that are contrary to “the universal law of the Church”.

Can. 446:

When a particular council has ended, the president is to take care that all the acts of the council are sent to the Apostolic See. Decrees issued by a particular council are not to be promulgated until the Apostolic See has reviewed them. It is for the [particular] council itself to define the manner of promulgation of the decrees and the time when the promulgated decrees begin to oblige (emphasis added).

In an ecumenical council, the Pope makes these decisions because the council applies to the entire Church. In a particular or local council (even though it still requires approval of the Pope), this decision comes from the bishops of such council.

Finally, from the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches Can. 600:

Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in synods or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own bishops with a religious obsequium of soul.

Ecumenical Councils enjoy infallibility. Can. 600 is clear that bishops “gathered in synods or in particular (local) councils” do not.

I can quote more canons, but I think we get the point. Regardless of whether the specific decree of a canon is applicable to the universal Church through other means (e.g. other councils, papal decrees, etc.), a local or particular councils are NOT binding on the universal Church.

 

[josie_L]

So if we have to follow that, why don’t Catholics have to follow the prohibitions against actors? You still haven’t answered that. Why are we picking and choosing which canons of that council we follow?

I believe actors and licentiousness behaviour (possibly even prostitution) went hand in hand back in the day, therefore, the prohibition (I will look into it though). Nevertheless, the issue of rebaptism is crucial, for it is delineated in scripture and the creed that only one baptism be administered. God bless.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

If and when the validity of the baptism is in question within the CC, i.e., was not baptized in the Trinitarian form and/or no record of the baptism in question, then yes, they would be baptized, but this is not re-baptism because they were never never validly baptized to begin with (or there is no evidence that they were validly baptized). The CC would not baptize those that they knew to be baptized in the Trinitarian form.

Josie, with all due respect, you are incorrect in your interpretation. Receiving a conditional baptism does not necessarily mean that the person being baptized “was not baptized in the Trinitarian form and/or no record of the baptism in question”, but that it cannot be determined whether baptism was “actually or there validly conferred”.

Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

§2. If after completing a diligent inquiry a prudent doubt still exists whether the sacraments mentioned in §1 were actually or validly conferred, they are to be conferred conditionally. (emphasis added)

If the baptism was indeed validly conferred, then the conditional baptism does not confer the sacrament. If the baptism was not valid or never occurred, then the conditional baptism confers the sacrament and all graces associated with it.

My understanding is that in those few Orthodox jurisdictions were Christian converts are “re-baptized”, what they are actually receiving IS a conditional baptism (although they do not call it that). I am basing this conclusion on comments posted by Orthodox members indicating that they also believe in “one baptism” and that if the first baptism was valid, then the second one does not really counts or confer additional graces. If, however, the first baptism was not valid, then the convert would receive all graces associated with the sacrament/mystery. These few jurisdictions that receive Catholics, for example, through baptism do so because in their minds (whether correct or not), Catholic baptism may or may not be valid. They opt for not making that determination. We, on the other hand, do consider Orthodox baptisms as valid. But if we also had doubts, we would baptize these converts as well.

As I mentioned before, we re-ordain Anglican clergy when received into the Catholic Church and Catholic clergy even though the Anglican Communion believes they have apostolic succession and their holy orders are valid. The Catholic Church obviously disagrees.

 

[Nine_Two]

I believe actors and licentiousness behaviour (possibly even prostitution) went hand in hand back in the day, therefore, the prohibition (I will look into it though). Nevertheless, the issue of rebaptism is crucial, for it is delineated in scripture and the creed that only one baptism be administered. God bless.

Pretty sure they go nearly hand in hand these days as well.

Nonetheless my point is not that I’m against actors, but that you’re picking and choosing what canons of a council (which you claim is binding on the universal church) are good.

 

[Madaglan]

Yes, it was an innovation as is attested by the canons I quoted and moreover:

I have already shown that re-baptism of converts who were validly baptized in the Trinitarian form was wrong and against the sacred traditions of the Church, therefore whatever Tertullian said on the matter is null and void.

I remember you only quoting the one canon from Arles. If you quoted another, please let me know which one. The canon from Arles on the Africans does not use the word innovation, even as churchmen not of North Africa may have seen it as such.

The early Church was not centralized. The North African Church had its traditions, the churches of Asia Minor had their traditions, the Irish Church their own. The bishops and people passed down the traditions, going back to the time of the Apostles. We see this especially in the case of the calculation of Easter.

While the North African bishops and Pope Stephen differed on how to receive persons, they were firmly in agreement that there is but one baptism in the Lord. The North African bishops did not believe they were re-baptizing since the baptism at the hands of heretics was a baptism into a different Christ than the one into which the Church baptized.

The “re-baptism” of heretics was something done elsewhere, as attested to even by Catholic Encyclopedia:

Tertullian had characteristically argued long before, that heretics have not the same God, the same Christ with Catholics, therefore their baptism is null. The African Church had adopted this view in a council held under a predecessor of Cyprian, Agrippinus, at Carthage. In the East it was also the custom of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Galatia to rebaptize Montanists who returned to the church.

source: newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

The churches in these regions are among the most ancient.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

I don’t know for sure, but I would venture to say that these “actors” would be the equivalent of the New Testament “tax collectors”. No one now a days would refer to tax collectors as sinners just because of their chosen profession. The same could be said of actors; they would not be considered sinners because of their occupation.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t know for sure, but I would venture to say that these “actors” would be the equivalent of the New Testament “tax collectors”. No one now a days would refer to tax collectors as sinners just because of their chosen profession. The same could be said of actors; they would not be considered sinners because of their occupation.

I’ve never heard the term actor used to refer to tax collector. But even if it was, Christ had fellowship with them quite often, seems unchristian then.

 

[josie_L]

Can. 445 (again):
This canon explains that particular (i.e. local) councils apply to “its own territory”. It also explain that particular councils cannot make decisions that are contrary to “the universal law of the Church”.

But this is exactly my point, Ad Gentes, that if one council is stating that re-baptism is wrong, i.e., the Council of Arles (which was ratified by the Pope), then how can other parts of the Church be rebaptizing? What is the universal law of the Church if that Church is both against and for rebaptism??? Somebody had to be wrong. Technically, the decisions at Arles were not universal but they espoused the faith of the Universal Church being that they were ratified by the bishop of Rome, " the supreme guardian of Christian tradition". Furthermore, according to scripture, tradition and church history, re-baptism is wrong. Recollect that Pope St. Stephen refused to ratify the decisions made at Carthage in 255 to rebaptize (but the council of Arles was ratified by a future pope). Note also that in canon 57 of Carthage (419 a.d.), it refers to the ancient tradition of laying on of hands to allow converts (if they are baptized in the trinitarian form) in the Church.

God bless.