Catholic/Orthodox unity

[Andrew_Phillip]

Anytime you rely on a Council for a decision you are implicitly asking for a poll.

We hope for reunification. Period! Our history is the same. I go so far as to testify that we are One.

With your last statement you seem to have a knack of differentiating yourself from the fold.

**We Orthodox believe YOU differentiate yourselves from “the fold”…

Why not return to your Christian roots and beliefs?**

 

[Deconi]

We Orthodox believe YOU differentiate yourselves from “the fold”…

Dunno how a fold can function in unity with multiple shepherds.
Andrew Phillip;6260936:

Why not return to your Christian roots and beliefs?

**

I seem to have found myself born into it and blessed with parents who were embracing in thought but definitive in stance.**

 

[Paul_theApostle]

I was baptised by Constantinople Church coming from Rome and the Father desired to do the Baptism ceromony because he assumed i would be interested in going to Mt Athos,and he said that at Mt Athos the Fathers only really accept 're’Baptism and not just Chrismation.

Well as i stand 16 years later i am all over the place,i havnt been to Mt Athos and i dont even know if im a Catholic or an Orthodox,but i do know maybe that im a Christian,after all is there something wrong with the name “Orthodox?” certainly not,or is the title “Catholic” a bad name ? certainly not,a russian priest said that we are all “Jehovas Witnesses” even

So where do i worship? where do i commune?
Do i do so at Rome because i was baptised there and Confirmed there?
Or do i do so at Constantinople or Moscow because i was also Baptised there and Chrismated?

But no,i must say,no i believe Orthodoxy is the truth ,the way and the life.
All that being Jesus Christ,in truth in what is taught and believed,in the way and path the Church follows and in the Life it shares in the Holy Spirit.

But maybe im not baptised even once both times not being triple immersed,for if the Orthodox baptised me because they consider not the sprinkling Latin baptism,then isnt pouring water over the head just using a heavier Sprinkler?

So then i traveled to the “Original” “Traditional” Orthodox Old Calender Churches who were happy to fulfill my request to be Baptised again,this time by triple immersion and this time by a real “True Genuine Orthodox Church”

But the respected Russian Church Abroad advised against this move.

where dost thou stand now o my soul?

Praying in the Papal Church Apostasizing from Holy Orthodoxy,

How did i end up at Rome again?

With tears and a broken heart and soul rising confessions and lively healing Communion,

O but have i done wrong in seeing the Holy Virgin Shine from her Statue in the temple?

Am i a heretic again to behold life ? or to behold the Holy Virgin in a “Devilish delusive non Orthodox Cold Statue which may perform false miracles?”

Am i a New Roman Catholicos Universal Orthodox Right believing True Worshipping Christian ? Or an Old Latin Roman Psuedo Catholic Non Orthodox non true worshipping false believer in Christ?

Do i listen to the Devout Old Romans and follow them or listen and follow the New Orthodox Believers

,I am an inbetweener ,on the fence ,Eastern Catholicism here i come,the bridge to Unity,the answer to my problems.

A Creed without the Filioque ,a heretic no more,tied to the Chair of Peter,the Promote of the Apostles and Bishops,the Light of the Church,the Pope the light of our souls,

But without azymes ,but eating pure bread for the Lord,

Somebody help,i had a dream few nights ago in my distress ,and was told quickly ,one follows Christ ,the Other AntiChrist

God always leaves us free ,never the violater

Lord have Mercy Lord have Mercy Lord have Mercy Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen

 

[prodromos]

I will make a comment and leave. The Catholic Church recognizes baptism in all Christian denominations (not momons and jw’s because they are not Christian). By immersion or pouring. To distinguish between the two carries no weight. In the name of the Father…the Son…and the Holy Spirit. To be baptized is to be baptized if the words of the Gospel are used.

The Orthodox Church simply does not recognise as sacraments, rituals performed by those not in the Orthodox Church, regardless of the form or the words used.

 

[Deconi]

I was baptised by Constantinople Church coming from Rome and the Father desired to do the Baptism ceromony because he assumed i would be interested in going to Mt Athos,and he said that at Mt Athos the Fathers only really accept 're’Baptism and not just Chrismation.

Well as i stand 16 years later i am all over the place,i havnt been to Mt Athos and i dont even know if im a Catholic or an Orthodox,but i do know maybe that im a Christian,after all is there something wrong with the name “Orthodox?” certainly not,or is the title “Catholic” a bad name ? certainly not,a russian priest said that we are all “Jehovas Witnesses” even

So where do i worship? where do i commune?
Do i do so at Rome because i was baptised there and Confirmed there?
Or do i do so at Constantinople or Moscow because i was also Baptised there and Chrismated?

But no,i must say,no i believe Orthodoxy is the truth ,the way and the life.
All that being Jesus Christ,in truth in what is taught and believed,in the way and path the Church follows and in the Life it shares in the Holy Spirit.

But maybe im not baptised even once both times not being triple immersed,for if the Orthodox baptised me because they consider not the sprinkling Latin baptism,then isnt pouring water over the head just using a heavier Sprinkler?

So then i traveled to the “Original” “Traditional” Orthodox Old Calender Churches who were happy to fulfill my request to be Baptised again,this time by triple immersion and this time by a real “True Genuine Orthodox Church”

But the respected Russian Church Abroad advised against this move.

where dost thou stand now o my soul?

Praying in the Papal Church Apostasizing from Holy Orthodoxy,

How did i end up at Rome again?

With tears and a broken heart and soul rising confessions and lively healing Communion,

O but have i done wrong in seeing the Holy Virgin Shine from her Statue in the temple?

Am i a heretic again to behold life ? or to behold the Holy Virgin in a “Devilish delusive non Orthodox Cold Statue which may perform false miracles?”

Am i a New Roman Catholicos Universal Orthodox Right believing True Worshipping Christian ? Or an Old Latin Roman Psuedo Catholic Non Orthodox non true worshipping false believer in Christ?

Do i listen to the Devout Old Romans and follow them or listen and follow the New Orthodox Believers

,I am an inbetweener ,on the fence ,Eastern Catholicism here i come,the bridge to Unity,the answer to my problems.

A Creed without the Filioque ,a heretic no more,tied to the Chair of Peter,the Promote of the Apostles and Bishops,the Light of the Church,the Pope the light of our souls,

But without azymes ,but eating pure bread for the Lord,

Somebody help,i had a dream few nights ago in my distress ,and was told quickly ,one follows Christ ,the Other AntiChrist

God always leaves us free ,never the violater

Lord have Mercy Lord have Mercy Lord have Mercy Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen

Definitively, know this with certainty; YOU ARE A BAPTIZED CHRISTIAN!

There was a line of Popes prior to the schism, and there is a line through and since the schism.

Even an atheist can see it!!

Let not the theological debates confound you, but use them to arrive at an informed decision.

God neither confuses or misleads nor ask of you that which you cannot perform!

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Why not just explore your mother Church - and the Orthodox Faith?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Im even thinking of becoming an Altar server at a Catholic Cathedral to be more a part of Rome,as i like the Catholic Church alot,but i see that they take communion every mass ,they kneel down and recieve in in their mouths,

A Catholic priest told me what the Orthodox priest did with me regarding the conversion was not a baptism at all,since the Catholic Church already baptised me,

I know the Orthodox mentality is to believe that the Orthodox Church is the true Church and that they recieve new members by Baptism or Chrismation.

I think im going to Church as though the Schism doesnt exist,as if its okay for one week to go to a Roman Mass and next week to a Greek Church etc

like as it was before 1000 years ago,i feel Gods presence in both Churches so why should i care if the Bishops are at odds with one another and cant sort out their problems and differences,do we have to take sides and hate the other and join in their pathetic squabbling and divisions.

As for sticking with the Orthodox because of rejection of Papal Infall or Primacy or the Filioque,i feeling that i dont care about this stuff anymore,i have prayed at Rome ,wept at Rome ,Sacramented at Rome and felt it all helpful and significant,

Let the Catholics here speak up,tell me ,do any of you care for the Orthodox claims of the ‘Heretical Filioque’ Clause? or what the Orthodox think about Papal Supremacy and infall.?

Are any of you going to leave the Catholic Church and go to become Orthodox because of their rejection of these things?

Do all you Catholics experience a significant amount of Gods Grace and Love in your Church not to believe the Orthodox claims that their Sacraments are void or graceless?

When i was Baptised by the Orthodox i didnt know anything really of the differences of the Churches or the “errors” of Rome.

I felt i was in need of Gods grace and mercy and i happened to be close with some Orthodox people who i attended Church with and decided to keep attending there,

Why i am now attending Rome again after 16 years i dunno,but i feel comfortable and happy going there,being called Paul i found the Catholic Church again in the year of St Paul and thought it amazing.

But anyway im being personal here,and even my Orthodox Priest understands why i go to the Catholic Church,but he says the Churches are not in Communion so i shouldnt go from one to the other,but it seems i flip flop…

Thanks ,Peace

 

[spn82756]

The Orthodox Church simply does not recognise as sacraments, rituals performed by those not in the Orthodox Church, regardless of the form or the words used.

I lied…I’m back before going to Mass.

It is sad that baptism in the Catholic…and for that matter…other Christian Churches is not recognized.

We talk about superiority and supremecy. It seems as though to not recognize the baptism is being elitist. I’m not being critical of the Orthodox Church. I have great respect for the Church. I wish we could “officially” see others and brothers and sisters in Christ.

Steve

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Well… we just can’t make unity happen by attending both Churches.

We need to understand the differences between them, before we can begin to reconcile them.**

 

[MariaG]

How do you think the Anglicans feel when the Roman Catholic Church told them their orders were invalid? How do you think the average Anglican who goes to a RC Mass feels when he is told he cannot receive communion because he is a heretic? How do you think the average Anglican feels when he is told he cannot confess to a Catholic priest and his confessions to an Anglican priest have no merit?

We mourn deeply that we cannot share communion with Rome, but we pray and hope for the day when Rome will return to Orthodoxy. This is the Orthodox view and I know you disagree, but this is how we believe and how we see it.

In Christ,
Andrew

I think he at least knows that we believe him to be a Christian.

He may be hurt but at least we acknowledge, share and respect each others basic Christianity.

Requiring Catholics to be baptized to enter the Orthodox Church means that the Orthodox, in part or whole, does not accept the basic Christianity of the Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

Actually I do agree with the point that Catholic baptisms are most likely valid (that’s personal opinion not Church teaching), I simply have issues with the way Josie presents the argument (Trinitarian formula good enough, we must abide by a local Western council). Notwithstanding that, the purpose of Economia is not to take the place of baptism, but to make up for any shortcomings in a previous baptism, which is why most Bishops will authorize it for most people who have been baptised in the trinitarian formula. Also most of the people who I have ever come across who were Baptised upon entering the Orthodox Church, even though they had previously been given a trinitarian formula baptism, were given the choice between a whole new baptism and being received by economia and chrismation. I’ve yet to hear of a Catholic convert being forced into it as a prerequisite for joining.

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.

 

[josie_L]

Who said anything about Orthodox not seeing Catholics as Christians? I’ve yet to meet one. Actually, no Orthodox Church accepts heterodox baptism. There are some bishops who allow for the Chrism to “complete anything lacking in their baptism.” You may have heard this called economia. Bishops are allowed to bind and loose after all.

We beleive in “One Lord, one faith, and one baptism” but if it is a different faith, it is a different baptism. Many who convert to Holy Orthodoxy are baptized so as to remove all doubt. This is how the Orthodox Church has always operated. I’m sorry if you don’t agree, but that is the way it is.

In Christ,
Andrew

What a bunch of hooey!! Since when as the Church pre-schism allowed some (those of a similar faith base) converts (who have all been baptized in a similar manner) to be baptized while others were not, does that make any sense to you ? Moreover you should know that even those who do recognize our baptism (the GOC) have some within their community re-baptizing Catholics:

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…f_converts.htm

and then there is this:

Originally Posted by 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.

 

[MariaG]

There is a poll in the Eastern Catholics forum asking about how reunion would have to come about. The outcome as of this morning (I haven’t looked back at the thread since) does not show this “respect” among Catholics.
Further, that’s not how the world works. Just because you respect someone does not obligate them to respect you. As I stated in my example with Anglicans, they respect Catholics but you the Catholic Church does not return that respect.
With that in mind I would like to state that I do respect the Roman Catholic Church personally, however the lack of respect I hold toward most of the Eastern Churches is what causes me great pause in dealing with the Latin Church.

Can’t really comment. I rarely go to that forum. Usually because of they way I feel in threads like this. I try to stay away, but since I was looking for a reason to feel hopeful, I tried this thread.

I should have stayed away.

In much the same way you declare a Baptist not a Christian when you make them get rebaptized, but somewhat less.
The truth of the matter is we will not abandon our beliefs and practices for the sake of not causing offense any more than you will.

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.

If someone is baptized in the Catholic Church, it is well documented.

And since there is not an even hand in whether a Catholic is baptized or not in coming into the Orthodox Church it is not a matter of abandoning your beliefs. Clearly, there is conflicting beliefs or conflicting application of those beliefs.

Frankly, I think I probably would come to handle it better if the Orthodox would just come out and say they don’t think Catholics are Christians. At least then we would know where we stand.

You’d rather be told you follow the Antichrist by a street preacher than be ignored? That’s very interesting.

I am not being told that by street preachers. It is by those who I used to pray with. Those whom I interact with.

And since you have answered this post, I have not (yet) been ignored.

But very telling comment.

Again, back to the point of the thread, I don’t see much hope in my lifetime for reunification. One can’t be reunified if one is unwilling to talk. Ignoring would clearly show an unwillingness to talk.

I am truly sorry you feel that way, but I have heard protestants say similar things over not being accepted in Communion by Catholics, and to be quite honest that is one of the few things that makes me believe unity may someday be possible, you won’t compromise for the sake of not causing offense, an issue we’ve had in ecumenical discussions with a certain other church

May be similar but we don’t deny the BASIC Christianity of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

By requiring Catholics to be baptized again, you are saying that Catholics are not Christians.

Pure and simple. ONE BAPTISM. Either one has had it and is part of the Body of Christ or one hasn’t and they are not part of the body of Christ. Requiring a Catholic to be baptized to enter the Orthodox Christ, one is declaring they were not part of the body of Christ because one knows how the majority of Catholic Baptisms are performed.

Until the Orthodox church can decide if the majority of Catholics are actually Christian, validly baptized, whether pouring or dunking, then really, what is the point of discussions? Why would anyone want to reunite with people whom they think most would have to be baptized first before receiving communion together? It is not being reunited with separated brethren if one cannot accept that they are a brother or sister in Christ in the first place.

 

[MariaG]

You are selectively reading my post.

I find it sadly amusing because I used to share your attitude, and I said so right there in that post. In fact, I was not only hurt, but outraged and publicly railed against it. I could not imagine how a Catholic could agree to suffer the indignity of even being re-Chrismated, let alone baptized.

.

No. I did not selectively read it. I read that you used to share that attitude. That does not make it any less hurtful.

I don’t have an opinion on a Catholic being required to be re-Chrismated because I do not believe I have a full understanding of exactly what that is.

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.

But reunification is remote to say the least if that is true as it appears to be for at least some segment of the Orthodox.

Actually, you should not be hurt, it’s just how things are.

I’lll have to work on that one.

Just because it is the way things are does not mean it is the way it should be. The Church should be one. And we are separated. It is wrong. It is not the Way Christ wanted it to be.

The Orthodox churches will usually receive Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and Latin Catholics with the same love and respect

I am sure those being received into your Church feel they are being treated with love and respect.

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 am a Christian. If I need to be baptized again to become Orthodox,it tells me I never have been Christian. If that is the message the Orthodox want to give, I have heard it:thumbsup:

But I need to stop now. I ended my day with tears and have started it with them. Enough. I am going to get ready for Church and lay it all before Him.

If any wish to contact me further, it will need to be by private message. I need to delete this thread from my subscriptions. I can’t do this anymore.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[TheosisM]

I think he at least knows that we believe him to be a Christian.

He may be hurt but at least we acknowledge, share and respect each others basic Christianity.

Requiring Catholics to be baptized to enter the Orthodox Church means that the Orthodox, in part or whole, does not accept the basic Christianity of the Catholic Church.

I think that this stems from a slight difference in ecclesiology (Orthodox can correct me if I’m wrong). In Catholicism, there is a recognition, to varying degrees, that Orthodox and Protestants are in some sort of communion with the Catholic Church (obviously not full communion under the Bishop of Rome). In contrast, the Orthodox Church does not believe that Catholics and Protestants are in any sort of communion with Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church believes that valid sacraments are only found in the Church, which makes sense. So, it does not judge on the validity of any of the sacraments of another church. Instead, there is a principle of eikonomia. Allowing a Catholic convert, for example, to be received into Orthodoxy by chrismation (confirmation) is not saying that their Catholic baptism was valid or “recognized”. Likewise, receiving a Catholic through baptism is not saying that their Catholic baptism was invalid. Instead, the principle of eikonomia is that, the Orthodox baptism or chrismation will “make up” for anything that is missing in the non-Orthodox sacraments. It will…perfect the previous non-Orthodox sacraments, since they were received outside of the Orthodox Church.

So, it really is not saying that Catholics are not Christian, or that Catholicism does not have valid sacraments. What it is saying is that you can only know that there are valid sacraments within the “one, true Church”, and since Catholicism is not in communion with Orthodoxy, there is no way to judge whether they do have valid sacraments. Eikonomia will therefore “make up” for anything missing in those non-Orthodox sacraments.

Again, this seems, to me, to be a matter of ecclesiology. Catholicism recognizes varying degrees of communion with the Catholic Church and certain non-Catholics (i.e. Trinitarian Protestants and Orthodox). Orthodoxy does not.

 

[brigantine]

This may have been said before but in my opinion the two Churches look at reunion from different perspectives. The RCC looks at it from the point of the schism but the Orthodox look at all the innovations that have taken place over the last thousand years.

How do Catholics think the Orthodox see the new Liturgy that the Catholic Church uses? What do Catholics think the Orthodox think when we see the Pope except Charismatic forms of worship? These are things that are rarely discussed but they help for Orthodox opinion on the modern RCC.

 

[Madaglan]

St. Cyprian was wrong (I don’t believe they were following sacred tradition so much as the opinions of a man, i.e., Tertullian who had fallen into error and those who had followed suit) .

St. Cyprian was wrong (with respect to baptism outside the Church).

And the Orthodox (who believe this way) are wrong because they follow St. Cyprian’s view even though it was repudiated later on by the very same churches which once embraced it (Pope St. Stephen’s view prevailed not St. Cyprian’s).

St. Augustine uses the word “custom” in reference to the view espoused by St. Cyprian. The North African churches, under the influence of St. Augustine, did adapt to the view of St. Augustine (echoing Pope Stephen and earlier churchmen) that there need not be a baptism of heretics coming into the Church who already had received a Trinitarian formula baptism at the hands of heretics.

The Eastern Churches continued to hold varying views on the matter. St. Basil the Great, 100 years following the time of St. Cyprian, writes in his canonical epistle:

As to the question concerning the Puritans the custom of every country is to be observed, since they who have discussed this point are of various sentiments. The [baptism] of the Pepuzenes I make no account of, and I wonder that Dionysius the canonist was of another mind. The ancients speak of heresies, which entirely break men off, and make them aliens from the faith. Such are the Manichæans, Valentinians, Marcionites and Pepuzenes, who sin against the Holy Ghost, who baptize into the Father, Son and Montanus, or Priscilla. Schisms are caused by ecclesiastical disputes, and for causes that are not incurable, and for differences concerning penance. The Puritans are such schismatics. The ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation**; because they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have broken the succession**. They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore they [the ancients] ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by laymen. Because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their baptism] be allowed: but not that of the Encratites; for they have altered their baptism, to make themselves incapable of being received by the Church. Yet custom and the Fathers, that is bishops, who have the administration, must be followed; for I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved; while I would raise fears in them concerning their baptism. We are not to allow their baptism, because they allow ours, but strictly to observe the canons. But let none be received without unction. When we received Zois and Saturninus to the Episcopal chair, we made, as it were, a canon to receive those in communion with them.

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xi.html

Notice St. Basil’s pastoral allowance: because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their baptism at the hands of schismatics] be allowed.

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

.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

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

Really?

 

[josie_L]

I think that this stems from a slight difference in ecclesiology (Orthodox can correct me if I’m wrong). In Catholicism, there is a recognition, to varying degrees, that Orthodox and Protestants are in some sort of communion with the Catholic Church (obviously not full communion under the Bishop of Rome). In contrast, the Orthodox Church does not believe that Catholics and Protestants are in any sort of communion with Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church believes that valid sacraments are only found in the Church, which makes sense. So, it does not judge on the validity of any of the sacraments of another church. Instead, there is a principle of eikonomia. Allowing a Catholic convert, for example, to be received into Orthodoxy by chrismation (confirmation) is not saying that their Catholic baptism was valid or “recognized”. Likewise, receiving a Catholic through baptism is not saying that their Catholic baptism was invalid. Instead, the principle of eikonomia is that, the Orthodox baptism or chrismation will “make up” for anything that is missing in the non-Orthodox sacraments. It will…perfect the previous non-Orthodox sacraments, since they were received outside of the Orthodox Church.

Yes, the principle of eikonomia which is not even administered uniformly throughout the Orthodox community, i.e., Catholics chrismated while others baptized. It makes absolutely no sense to differentiate between Catholics who have had the same sacraments administered in the same way, and this despite tradition which tells us exactly how to proceed and decipher what is and isn’t a valid baptism and therefore how to accept converts into the Church.

Here is yet more divisiveness within the Orthodox community vis a vis re-baptism:

**The Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, published a response, last summer, to a question from a reader about Baptism. The reader called into question the “new practice” of Baptizing “those [already] baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity” when seeking entry into Orthodoxy, rather than receiving them by “profession of faith, or, if they are not confirmed, by Holy Chrismation.” **The Illuminator responded to this inquiry by making the following astonishing observations:

1. The Orthodox Church receives “all those baptized in the Holy Trinity and correctly professing faith in the Holy Trinity.” Faithful from the “Oriental Orthodox Churches…are accepted by profession of faith only.”

1. Those coming from confessions which “profess faith in the Holy Trinity but who do not have a true sacrament of confirmation (or Chrismation), as they do not have true (‘valid’) priesthood, are accepted by Chrismation.”

1. “To treat Trinitarian Christians as unbaptized heathens is an injustice committed against Christian baptism, and eventually a blasphemy against God’s Holy Spirit Who is at work at any Christian baptism.”

1. “When we confess faith in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we do not mean by that Orthodox baptism, but any Christian baptism.” The Holy Spirit is not “limited by human canonical boundaries we have established for our convenience. We cannot bind the spirit, and not allow Him to work with all the other Christians, just because some of us so decided.”

(no. 5 deals with the filioque)

1. The Orthodox Church "has never formally rejected the Roman Church as a Christian Church, as some of our fanatics may believe. True, a contemporary rejection of the Roman baptism by the Great Church of Constantinople for pastoral reasons has taken place. But this was corrected and readdressed, as soon as the cause of this rejection disappeared.

“Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the two ‘sister churches’ of old continue to recognize one another’s baptism, as well as the other sacraments celebrated in these churches.”

1. The rebaptism by Orthodox of baptized heterodox Christians is inspired by “narrow-mindedness, fanaticism and bigotry.”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/maximos_reply.aspx

But the funny thing is that those who reply to the Illuminator shoot down this very answer, thus to be Orthodox is a contradiction in terms apparently.

Again, this seems, to me, to be a matter of ecclesiology. Catholicism recognizes varying degrees of communion with the Catholic Church and certain non-Catholics (i.e. Trinitarian Protestants and Orthodox). Orthodoxy does not.

The problem seems to be that the Orthodox community don’t share similar theological definitions/perspectives amongst themselves.

 

[Harpazo]

Yes, the principle of eikonomia which is not even administered uniformly throughout the Orthodox community, i.e., Catholics chrismated while others baptized. It makes absolutely no sense to differentiate between Catholics who have had the same sacraments administered in the same way, and this despite tradition which tells us exactly how to proceed and decipher what is and isn’t a valid baptism and therefore how to accept converts into the Church.

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. Why? As was previously stated by many Orthodox, all heterodox sacraments are considered “invalid” to use your phrasing. Chrismation is in eikonomia so as to make up for whatever was lacking in the previous baptism. Period.

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. 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.

Of course all of this leads me back to a question I have been asking ever since you have been interrogating Orthodox: Why does this matter to you? You are not Orthodox and have no intention of ever becoming Orthodox? What bearing does the inner workings of Holy Orthodoxy have on your soul? To me, this situation is comparable to a Lutheran complaining to a Catholic that it is unjust that he cannot receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass. The Catholic Church’s position shouldn’t have any bearing on his salvation if he himself believes in the Real Presence.

Perhaps from now on I should just answer all the superfluous anti-Orthodox accusations with the phrase “You may be right.” It’ll end the argument without me agreeing, you disagreeing and it will satisfy your ego. This is just getting tiresome.

In Christ,
Andrew