Catholic/Orthodox unity

[Ad_Gentes]

Originally Posted by Ad Gentes

Actually, what you said was, “The Catholic Church does not re-baptize those members who have been baptized in the Trinitarian form (three persons in one God).” I said this is “partially true” because some “churches” baptize in the Trinitarian form but their baptism are not considered valid by the Catholic Church (e.g. Mormons).

 

[Madaglan]

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.

St. Cyprian and the North African bishops did not believe in rebaptism. They believed in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This one baptism could not be repeated. The disagreement concerned the nature of the heretical “baptism”. The concern of the North African bishops is understandable when the heretics may use the Trinitarian formula but mean something quite different from the Faith (as with later Arians).

The universal law of the Church is that there is only one baptism in Christ. All the orthodox Churches since the time of the Apostles have held to this.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

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?

We’re going in a “loop” here. The Council of Arles was held in 314. Rome was represented by legates and the Pope was informed of the results of the council. That implies, as you stated, that the Pope at least accepted its canons. But this council was, nevertheless, a local council. That means it did not enjoy infallibility. It also means that it did not have representatives of the entire Church, including the East. At that time, it was also customary for the Patriarchs to ratify the canons of a council that applied to their local churches. Do you know if that occurred? The Pope, as Patriarch of the West, ratified this council for the West (his immediate territory). That is the point I am trying to make; not whether re-baptism is acceptable or not. Many canons approved by local councils were later ratified by ecumenical councils. But what made them binding on the universal Church was not the initial local council.

Let me give you another example. The Catholic Church believes that the Pope, as successor of Saint Peter, has always enjoyed infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. However, history proves that many within the Catholic Church did not always accept this dogma. When the First Vatican Council declared papal infallibility a dogma, it became binding on the entire Catholic Church. Before that, those not accepting this belief were not excommunicated because of it. The same occurred with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception before it was solemnly defined by Pius IX.

P.S. I am not trying to start another debate on papal infallibility or the immaculate conception, just to point out that these dogmas were not binding until defined by Vatican I and Pius IX respectively.

 

[josie_L]

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”.

With all due respect Ad Gentes, my point was that within the Orthodox community there are those who were validly baptized being baptized all over again when they convert, and I gave one such example (SMM and family) to attest to this (there are others). Therefore Ad Gentes they are REBAPTIZING (even Roman Catholics).

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.

Then pray tell Ad Gentes what was the controversy surrounding rebaptism with respect to Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian (and the other canons and examples mentioned?

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.

Honestly, this is getting ridiculous, I mean if the early Church has given us the formula by which to understand what is and isn’t valid with respect to baptisms, then why is it so confoundly difficult for people to surmise when someone’s been validly baptized, i.e., baptized in the trinitarian form (three persons in one God) with water? Moreover, conditional baptisms or no, if the one has been deemed validly baptized (as per the Traditions of the Church) then why bother even with conditional baptisms?

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.

Yes, but there is no wafflling on the matter in that we do not have some in the Church accepting Anglican clergy while others in the Church are, i.e., there is uniformity on the matter (just like it should be). God bless.

 

[josie_L]

St. Cyprian and the North African bishops did not believe in rebaptism.

They didn’t “believe” in rebaptism but essentially they were practicing rebaptism by stating all heretics should be baptized when entering the Church even though they were validly baptized in the Trinitarian form in their own churches. This is why St. Cyprian got into trouble with Pope St. Stephen because he was going against the (sacred) traditions of the Church by making no exceptions with respect to baptizing converts coming into the Church (St. Cyprian was working under the assumption that if they were not baptized by the Church then their baptisms were not valid). .

They believed in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This one baptism could not be repeated. The disagreement concerned the nature of the heretical “baptism”. The concern of the North African bishops is understandable when the heretics may use the Trinitarian formula but mean something quite different from the Faith (as with later Arians).

But St. Cyprian believed that all converts needed to be baptized by the Church, no exceptions.

The universal law of the Church is that there is only one baptism in Christ. All the orthodox Churches since the time of the Apostles have held to this.

They may believe in one baptism but that is not what all Orthodox communities are practicing as evidenced by the fact that Roman Catholics are being baptized (conditional or no) into Orthodoxy.

 

[josie_L]

Actually, what you said was, “The Catholic Church does not re-baptize those members who have been baptized in the Trinitarian form (three persons in one God).” I said this is “partially true” because some “churches” baptize in the Trinitarian form but their baptism are not considered valid by the Catholic Church (e.g. Mormons).

Mormons baptize in the Trinitarian form but they don’t believe in the Holy Trinity that is three persons in one God but rather three Gods that is why we do not consider their baptisms as valid (they are polytheists). So my statement stands true in that to be baptized in the trinitarian form (three persons in one God) makes for a valid baptism.

 

[josie_L]

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.

As I mentioned earlier actors were in many ways prostitutes and/or lived very immoral lives (due to their environs) hence the reason they were barred from communion, i.e., they could not simultaneously be Christians and actors. Therefore, actors who wanted to be Christian could not continue in their profession (just like I’m sure a prostitute could not continue her “profession” if she wished to be a Christian). God bless.

p.s. Nowadays actors can pick and choose what roles they wish to play and therefore can avoid unsavory actions/roles that would conflict with their Christian values.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

With all due respect Ad Gentes, my point was that within the Orthodox community there are those who were validly baptized being baptized all over again when they convert, and I gave one such example (SMM and family) to attest to this (there are others). Therefore Ad Gentes they are REBAPTIZING (even Roman Catholics).

Let’s see if we can at least agree on some points. As Catholics, we believe that Catholic baptism is valid. Because we believe that our baptism is valid, former Catholics being received into the Orthodox Church through baptism would be in fact receiving a second baptism. We, as Catholics, believe that baptism is only confer once. Base on that, Orthodox should not re-baptize Catholic when they join their Church. Are we good so far?

Eastern Orthodox also believe in one baptism. Some Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions, however, have doubts on the validity of Catholic baptism. Because of that, they opt to re-baptize Catholics converting to Orthodoxy. If our baptism was indeed invalid, they would be correct. If our baptism is valid, then this second baptism should not be performed. The problem, as I see it, is not that some Orthodox believe in second baptisms (they do not), but that they question the validity of ours. We, as Catholics, obviously disagree on this. Are we still good?

If we had doubts on the validity of Orthodox baptisms (which we do not), we would perform what we call ‘conditional baptism’. Those Orthodox “re-baptizing” Catholics are doing the same thing (although they do not call it that).

Yes, but there is no wafflling on the matter in that we do not have some in the Church accepting Anglican clergy while others in the Church are, i.e., there is uniformity on the matter (just like it should be). God bless.

You are correct that we do not have different Catholic jurisdictions receiving Anglican converts in different ways. That is because we have a single unifying jurisdiction (Rome) that defines how we must proceed on the matter. The reason I used Anglican clergy as an example is because, while we believe their holy order to be invalid, they obviously do not. I thought there was a similarity with regards of the baptism topic being discussed.

I believe that we are in agreement on the most important points. And if we can’t agree in others, let’s just respectfully agree to disagree. I think we’ve beaten this horse to death. God bless and peace!

 

[josie_L]

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.

I never said that the canon from Arles used the word “innovation” (Pope St. Stephen said this with regard to St.Cyprian wanting to baptize all converts into the Church no exceptions). The other canons are mentioned in post 138 (canon 57 of the council of Carthage, 419 a.d., and another synod in 348).

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.

You are confusing the traditions of men with that of of the sacred Traditions of the Church (where there can be no exceptions).

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.

St. Cyprian thought that only baptisms performed in the Church were valid, but this view is proven false because there were converts into the Church who just received the laying on of hands because their baptisms were considered valid by the Church (Tradition tells us how to proceed in these matters and St. Cyprian failed to follow through).

 

[josie_L]

We’re going in a “loop” here. The Council of Arles was held in 314. Rome was represented by legates and the Pope was informed of the results of the council. That implies, as you stated, that the Pope at least accepted its canons. But this council was, nevertheless, a local council. That means it did not enjoy infallibility. It also means that it did not have representatives of the entire Church, including the East. At that time, it was also customary for the Patriarchs to ratify the canons of a council that applied to their local churches. Do you know if that occurred? The Pope, as Patriarch of the West, ratified this council for the West (his immediate territory). That is the point I am trying to make; not whether re-baptism is acceptable or not. Many canons approved by local councils were later ratified by ecumenical councils. But what made them binding on the universal Church was not the initial local council.

Ad Gentes, I know it was a local council but it was a reflection of what the Church believed because the Pope ratified all councils whether in his immediate territory or not, i.e., because he had universal jurisdiction (and I assume the Popes would not contradict themselves and make a mockery of Christian (sacred) Tradition since they were the supreme guardian of Christian Tradition). This is why, furthermore, the council of Carthage (256 a.d.) initiated by St. Cyprian wrote to St. Stephen so he may ratify the conciliar decisions made but alas he didn’t because it was against the sacred traditions of the Church. That’s what I was more or less trying to convey when I mentioned Ephesians 4:4-6, i…e, uniformity of faith and morals (one could not have one council saying one thing while another said something else because in the end all decisions were ratified by the pope in order to make sure uniformity was being upheld). God bless.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Josie, it’s nothing personal, but I have to respond…again (sorry ).

Ad Gentes, I know it was a local council but it was a reflection of what the Church believed because the Pope ratified all councils…

According to the Code of Canon Law, only the Pope and an ecumenical council posseses infallibility.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively. (Emphasis Added)

Even though local or particular councils must be ratified by the Pope and its bishops in communion with him, they do not possess infallibility.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops. (Emphasis Added)

I’m not making this up; this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[josie_L]

Josie, it’s nothing personal, but I have to respond…again (sorry ).

No need to apologize.

According to the Code of Canon Law, only the Pope and an ecumenical council posseses infallibility.

Yes, you are right I’m not arguing this, I’m just trying to say that local councils bear some imprint of what the Church believes to an extent (albeit they themselves are not infallible).

Even though local or particular councils must be ratified by the Pope and its bishops in communion with him, they do not possess infallibility.

Agreed.

I’m not making this up; this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

I know you’re not, God bless Ad Gentes!!

 

[Ad_Gentes]

…because the Pope ratified all councils whether in his immediate territory or not, i.e., because he had universal jurisdiction…

I know that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope has “universal jurisdiction”, but the extend of that jurisdiction beyond his immediate territory in the West is debatable (but please let’s not start a debate on that). Anyhow, it’s a fact that the Pope, while not physically present, ratified the canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (all the Patriarchs did, except for those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon). I’m not sure if the Pope ratified the canons of regional or local councils within Eastern jurisdictions. I would venture to say no; their respective Patriarchs did. I don’t have enough documentation to support this conclusion though.

One thing that seems interesting, however, is that after the non-Chalcedonian Patriarchs fell out of communion with the Pope of Rome, they continue to be in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople until Emperor Justin I ordered them replaced.

 

[Nine_Two]

They may believe in one baptism but that is not what all Orthodox communities are practicing as evidenced by the fact that Roman Catholics are being baptized (conditional or no) into Orthodoxy.

Just because you believe without a doubt that Roman Catholic Baptism is valid beyond a shadow of a doubt does not mean we think so. Just as Anglicans believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have Holy Orders doesn’t mean they do.

In fact I have observed that Catholics tend to look at Orthodox the same way Anglicans look at Catholics, and further Catholics look on Anglicans the same way Orthodox look on Catholics. You may think we are equals before God, but we do not share this belief, and your trying to superimpose itself on us with the canons of local councils, the canons of which your own church ignores, does not make a worthwhile argument.

 

[josie_L]

Just because you believe without a doubt that Roman Catholic Baptism is valid beyond a shadow of a doubt does not mean we think so. Just as Anglicans believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have Holy Orders doesn’t mean they do.

In fact I have observed that Catholics tend to look at Orthodox the same way Anglicans look at Catholics, and further Catholics look on Anglicans the same way Orthodox look on Catholics. You may think we are equals before God, but we do not share this belief, and your trying to superimpose itself on us with the canons of local councils, the canons of which your own church ignores, does not make a worthwhile argument.

If you or others in the Orthodox community believe that Catholics do not have valid baptisms then you and the Orthodox community are at odds with the ancient (sacred) traditions of the Church which specified what constitutes a valid baptism and moreover what should be done for those validly baptized converts entering into the Church (reread canon 57 of the council of Carthage for the clues).

 

[Nine_Two]

If you or others in the Orthodox community believe that Catholics do not have valid baptisms then you and the Orthodox community are at odds with the ancient (sacred) traditions of the Church which specified what constitutes a valid baptism and moreover what should be done for those validly baptized converts entering into the Church (reread canon 57 of the council of Carthage for the clues).

What do children, unaware of error, being baptised by Donatists have to do with us?
You’re getting caught up on the formula. There are those who believe Catholic baptism to be invalid because it is not done by immersion.

 

[josie_L]

What do children, unaware of error, being baptised by Donatists have to do with us?
You’re getting caught up on the formula. There are those who believe Catholic baptism to be invalid because it is not done by immersion.

Really, Nine_two, then may I ask why some Orthodox do accept the validity of Catholic baptism (even though they have not been immersed), i.e., am I to assume then that it’s both valid and invalid as per the different perspectives of the autocephalous Churches in the Orthodox community? Is this what the Church pre-shism taught? And may I ask, was your baptism considered valid, i.e., did you have it done by immersion? Because if not then some members in the Orthodox community will not consider you validly baptized either. Here’s what the canon says:

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 . . . "

Obviously, these converts did not need to be baptized, but were received by the imposition of the hand into the Catholic Church of God.

 

[Nine_Two]

As stated several times before, we don’t try to make the argument for “validity” I simply stated it is a reason the Catholic baptism could be considered invalid.

 

[MariaG]

I find it sadly amusing when someone who has no interest at all in converting gets all sparked up and offended because people from their own church have agreed to be baptized in order to become Orthodox. I used to feel exactly the same way !

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.

Sadly amusing that someone is offended and deeply hurt that those we consider so close that they are the other lung of Christianity won’t accept the baptism from our Church?

Okay, be sadly amused while I continue to be deeply hurt.

Thanks brother.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

As stated several times before, we don’t try to make the argument for “validity” I simply stated it is a reason the Catholic baptism could be considered invalid.

While I can understand the Orthodox position regarding the validity of non-Orthodox baptisms (and the possible need for re-baptism if such non-Orthodox baptisms were indeed invalid), the truth is that not every Orthodox Autocephalous Church re-baptizes converts from Catholicism. Given the fact that most Catholic baptisms are not ordinarily performed by immersion, at least those Orthodox jurisdictions receiving former Catholic converts through chrismation are implicitly accepting the validity of Catholic baptisms by pouring. If they did not accept Catholic baptisms, then they would not be able to receive these converts through chrismation since a valid baptism is a requirement for all other sacraments/mysteries in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Since Jesus Christ himself required his disciples to be baptized (cf. Mt 28:19-20), economia cannot be used to “avoid” this most sacred mystery. The bottom line is that while I, as a Catholic, cannot tell Orthodox what to believe, receiving Catholics through chrismation is an implicit acknowledgement of the validity of their baptism. No one can be crismated or even received into the Church without a valid baptism.