Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[Milliardo]

I was told that Orthodox do not accept Catholic baptism and all other Catholic Sacraments. So the Catholic Pope, Catholic bishops, Catholic priests are just unbaptised lay people in the eyes of the Orthodox Church.

Depends on the jurisdiction, and even at times upon the bishop of a jurisdiction. There are those who accept Catholic baptism and would only require Catholics entering Orthodoxy to be chrismated, while there are others who will have the Catholic baptized into Orthodoxy.

 

[sidbrown]

Depends on the jurisdiction, and even at times upon the bishop of a jurisdiction. There are those who accept Catholic baptism and would only require Catholics entering Orthodoxy to be chrismated, while there are others who will have the Catholic baptized into Orthodoxy.

"In the simplest terms, the (Orthodox) Church believes that there are no sacraments outside the Church. Thus, according to strictness or the strict view (in Greek ‘akrivia’), any Roman Catholic or Protestant who wishes to join the (Orthodox) Church must be received by baptism, for they are considered not to have been baptised. This is the practice on Mt Athos, in Greece, on Cyprus and in other parts of the Orthodox world, especially in Serbia. "
orthodoxengland.org.uk/

 

[mardukm]

"In the simplest terms, the (Orthodox) Church believes that there are no sacraments outside the Church. Thus, according to strictness or the strict view (in Greek ‘akrivia’), any Roman Catholic or Protestant who wishes to join the (Orthodox) Church must be received by baptism, for they are considered not to have been baptised. This is the practice on Mt Athos, in Greece, on Cyprus and in other parts of the Orthodox world, especially in Serbia. "
orthodoxengland.org.uk/

So you think that Mt. Athos, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, and an unofficial website of a ROCOR parish in England with the following disclaimer: Views expressed on this site are those of the respective author and not necessarily of the editor, webmaster or any Orthodox jurisdiction. represents all of Orthodoxy?


Blessings

 

[sidbrown]

So you think that Mt. Athos, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, and an unofficial website of a ROCOR parish in England with the following disclaimer: Views expressed on this site are those of the respective author and not necessarily of the editor, webmaster or any Orthodox jurisdiction. represents all of Orthodoxy?


Blessings

“There are no Mysteries [Sacraments] outside the [Orthodox] Church, the living Body of Christ, just as there are no senses outside the human body.”
orthodoxinfo.com/

 

[Milliardo]

"In the simplest terms, the (Orthodox) Church believes that there are no sacraments outside the Church. Thus, according to strictness or the strict view (in Greek ‘akrivia’), any Roman Catholic or Protestant who wishes to join the (Orthodox) Church must be received by baptism, for they are considered not to have been baptised. This is the practice on Mt Athos, in Greece, on Cyprus and in other parts of the Orthodox world, especially in Serbia. "
orthodoxengland.org.uk/

That is why I said it depends on the jurisdiction; I noticed the site is ROCOR or at least allied with ROCOR. I am not too familiar with ROCOR or even how Moscow receives converts, but in the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Antioch, Catholics coming into Orthodoxy are received through chrismation. Of course, this can be attributed to eikonomia.**

 

[Aramis]

So you think that Mt. Athos, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, and an unofficial website of a ROCOR parish in England with the following disclaimer: Views expressed on this site are those of the respective author and not necessarily of the editor, webmaster or any Orthodox jurisdiction. represents all of Orthodoxy?


Blessings

Especially views contrary to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils???

Which specifically state Baptism by heretics is still valid and non-repeatable if it was done correctly with the correct words…

Any group which rebaptizes those baptized with the proper trinitarian baptism by full immersion (such as is common in Baptists) is itself heterodox.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Especially views contrary to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils???

Which specifically state Baptism by heretics is still valid and non-repeatable if it was done correctly with the correct words.

Proof please?

 

[mardukm]

Proof please?

Canon 8, Council of Nice:
Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy.

NOTE: The Cathari were the Novatians whose baptism was the cause of the debate between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian. This canon, by accepting the ordinations of the Novatians as valid, indicated that their baptisms were also considered valid by the Church.

Canon 19, Council of Nice I:
Concerning the Paulianists…if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach. let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church.

So why were the baptisms/ordinations of the Novatians/Cathari accepted, while those of the Paulianists were rejected? Exactly as brother Aramis stated. The Paulianists, followers of Paul of Samosota, were anti-Trinitarians and did not baptize “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” On the other hand, the Novatians did.

Canon 7, Council of Constantinople I:
Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy…Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians…Quarto-decimans, Apollinarians, we receive upon their giving a written renunciation of their errors and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil…But Eunomians…Montanists…Sabellians…and all other heresies…we receive as heathen.

Why were the baptisms of the first set of heretics accepted, while the baptisms of the second set rejected as invalid?

According to Socrates of Constantinople, Eunomians changed the baptismal formula as baptism “In the name of the Creator.” It’s relevant that Eunomians were a sect of Arians, but the baptism of Arians was accepted. St. Cyprian informs us that Montanists baptized in the Name of Christ only. Tertullian tells us that the Sabellians baptized in the name of a uni-personal God, not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

My favorite early patristic quote on the matter is from Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria in the 3rd century: “Those baptized in the name of three persons…though baptized by heretics…shall not be rebaptized. But those converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

Canon 8, Council of Nice:
Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy.

NOTE: The Cathari were the Novatians whose baptism was the cause of the debate between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian. This canon, by accepting the ordinations of the Novatians as valid, indicated that their baptisms were also considered valid by the Church.

Canon 19, Council of Nice I:
Concerning the Paulianists…if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach. let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church.

So why were the baptisms/ordinations of the Novatians/Cathari accepted, while those of the Paulianists were rejected? Exactly as brother Aramis stated. The Paulianists, followers of Paul of Samosota, were anti-Trinitarians and did not baptize “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” On the other hand, the Novatians did.

Canon 7, Council of Constantinople I:
Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy…Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians…Quarto-decimans, Apollinarians, we receive upon their giving a written renunciation of their errors and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil…But Eunomians…Montanists…Sabellians…and all other heresies…we receive as heathen.

Why were the baptisms of the first set of heretics accepted, while the baptisms of the second set rejected as invalid?

According to Socrates of Constantinople, Eunomians changed the baptismal formula as baptism “In the name of the Creator.” It’s relevant that Eunomians were a sect of Arians, but the baptism of Arians was accepted. St. Cyprian informs us that Montanists baptized in the Name of Christ only. Tertullian tells us that the Sabellians baptized in the name of a uni-personal God, not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

My favorite early patristic quote on the matter is from Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria in the 3rd century: “Those baptized in the name of three persons…though baptized by heretics…shall not be rebaptized. But those converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Roman Catholics recognise the Sacraments of Eastern Orthodox. But some Eastern Orthodox still do not accept the Sacraments of Catholics, including Baptism.

 

[JohnVIII]

That is why I said it depends on the jurisdiction; I noticed the site is ROCOR or at least allied with ROCOR. I am not too familiar with ROCOR or even how Moscow receives converts, but in the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Antioch, Catholics coming into Orthodoxy are received through chrismation. Of course, this can be attributed to eikonomia.

Most Orthodox Churches except Catholic Baptism, but most will still re-chrismate. And this is proof enough that Orthodox do not except sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church because by re-chrismating they are saying that the Holy Spirit is lacking and therefore there is no grace.

 

[JohnVIII]

Canon 8, Council of Nice:
Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy.

NOTE: The Cathari were the Novatians whose baptism was the cause of the debate between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian. This canon, by accepting the ordinations of the Novatians as valid, indicated that their baptisms were also considered valid by the Church.

Canon 19, Council of Nice I:
Concerning the Paulianists…if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach. let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church.

So why were the baptisms/ordinations of the Novatians/Cathari accepted, while those of the Paulianists were rejected? Exactly as brother Aramis stated. The Paulianists, followers of Paul of Samosota, were anti-Trinitarians and did not baptize “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” On the other hand, the Novatians did.

Canon 7, Council of Constantinople I:
Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy…Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians…Quarto-decimans, Apollinarians, we receive upon their giving a written renunciation of their errors and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil…But Eunomians…Montanists…Sabellians…and all other heresies…we receive as heathen.

Why were the baptisms of the first set of heretics accepted, while the baptisms of the second set rejected as invalid?

According to Socrates of Constantinople, Eunomians changed the baptismal formula as baptism “In the name of the Creator.” It’s relevant that Eunomians were a sect of Arians, but the baptism of Arians was accepted. St. Cyprian informs us that Montanists baptized in the Name of Christ only. Tertullian tells us that the Sabellians baptized in the name of a uni-personal God, not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

My favorite early patristic quote on the matter is from Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria in the 3rd century: “Those baptized in the name of three persons…though baptized by heretics…shall not be rebaptized. But those converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Sorry brother [user]mardukm[/user], you have only quoted one side of the canons on this matter. Not all canons speak the same on this issue, and there are reasons why this is so.

Canons of the Holy Apostles:

CANON 46

We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for “what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? Or what part hath the believer with infidel?”

CANON 47

If the Bishop, or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudopriests.

CANON 68

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon except a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergyman.

Three Immersions for one Baptism Required:

CANON 50

If any Bishop, or Presbyter does not perform three immersions in making one baptism, but a single immersion, that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. The Lord did not say, “Baptize ye into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

 

[Vico]

Most Orthodox Churches except Catholic Baptism, but most will still re-chrismate. And this is proof enough that Orthodox do not except sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church because by re-chrismating they are saying that the Holy Spirit is lacking and therefore there is no grace.

Are you sure that the reason is lack of grace?

Could it be the link to the Orthodox eparch (and thus the Orthodox Church) through the bishops blessing of the Holy Chrism is missing?

The reasoning I have seen for not having communion between the Catholic and Orthodox is that there is no sacramental sharing unless there is first unity of faith, and that cannot be with any different theology and idea of primacy. Similar issues exist between the Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[Aramis]

Sorry brother [user]mardukm[/user], you have only quoted one side of the canons on this matter. Not all canons speak the same on this issue, and there are reasons why this is so.

Canons of the Holy Apostles:

CANON 46

We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for “what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? Or what part hath the believer with infidel?”

CANON 47

If the Bishop, or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudopriests.

CANON 68

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon except a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergyman.

Three Immersions for one Baptism Required:

CANON 50

If any Bishop, or Presbyter does not perform three immersions in making one baptism, but a single immersion, that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. The Lord did not say, “Baptize ye into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

John, you need to double-check your quotes; Accept is to affirm or take in; except is very different; to except something means to NOT have it follow the rules.

Either you’ve badly mangled the quotes, or they say the opposite of what you think.

 

[sidbrown]

Sorry brother [user]mardukm[/user], you have only quoted one side of the canons on this matter. Not all canons speak the same on this issue, and there are reasons why this is so.

Canons of the Holy Apostles:

CANON 46

We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for “what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? Or what part hath the believer with infidel?”

CANON 47

If the Bishop, or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudopriests.

CANON 68

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon except a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergyman.

Three Immersions for one Baptism Required:

CANON 50

If any Bishop, or Presbyter does not perform three immersions in making one baptism, but a single immersion, that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. The Lord did not say, “Baptize ye into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

It is very clear that three immersions are required according to this canon. When was this canon written and when did the Catholic authorities decide to overrule it and allow
Baptism by sprinkling? Was this done in an ecumenical council or was it done unilaterally?
Perhaps this is why many E. Orthodox say that the Roman Catholic Pope is an unbaptised layperson.

 

[fritzz_ezz]

What? They never taught you that St. Photios died in communion with Rome (while she was still Orthodox from our view)? They also never taught you that he is commemorated in most if not ALL of the Eastern Catholic churches under Rome? Where did you learn that he was still considered a “schismatic?”

In Christ,
Andrew

The Eastern Catholic Churches aren’t under Rome - they are in communion with Roma.

 

[Aramis]

The Eastern Catholic Churches aren’t under Rome - they are in communion with Roma.

Some ARE under rome; only the Patriarchal can be said legitimately to not be under Rome; Metropolitan, Eparchial, and Exarchate Churches have their bishops appointed by Rome after consultation with and recommendation by the hierarchs (of a metropolia) or the priests (of an eparchial church or exarchate).

Even Major Archiepiscopal Churches “require” Rome’s approval of the elected primate… but it’s rare for Rome to reject the candidate, if they have ever done so.

 

[Vico]

Some ARE under rome; only the Patriarchal can be said legitimately to not be under Rome; Metropolitan, Eparchial, and Exarchate Churches have their bishops appointed by Rome after consultation with and recommendation by the hierarchs (of a metropolia) or the priests (of an eparchial church or exarchate).

Even Major Archiepiscopal Churches “require” Rome’s approval of the elected primate… but it’s rare for Rome to reject the candidate, if they have ever done so.

The Major Archiepiscopal was seen as necessary because there are political situations where being a Patriarch would be harmful. Such a situation exists in the Ukraine where there are so many Orthodox or Catholic churches:

Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate
Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Latin Catholic

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

The Major Archiepiscopal was seen as necessary because there are political situations where being a Patriarch would be harmful. Such a situation exists in the Ukraine where there are so many Orthodox or Catholic churches:

Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate
Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Latin Catholic

I’ve always understood this situation as not being conditioned by ecclesiastical politics, but by ancient canon. I think the Catholic Church (and OO) is more conservative than the EO in this regard, and is not wont to establish new territorial patriarchates like the EO, preferring to remain faithful to the ancient order of the Pentarchy of the first millenium.

What do you think?

Blessings

 

[sidbrown]

The Eastern Catholic Churches aren’t under Rome - they are in communion with Roma.

If they are not under Rome, how come it was Cardinal Ratzinger who turned down the Zoghby initiative of the Melchite Church? And how come Cardinal Ratzinger turned down the request by the Ruthenian Church for a more liberal attituded toward married priests in the USA?

 

[Formosus]

Dear brother Vico,

I’ve always understood this situation as not being conditioned by ecclesiastical politics, but by ancient canon. I think the Catholic Church (and OO) is more conservative than the EO in this regard, and is not wont to establish new territorial patriarchates like the EO, preferring to remain faithful to the ancient order of the Pentarchy of the first millenium.

What do you think?

Blessings

Seems unlikely,as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, since the creation of Latin Patriarchates like that of Venice. Even if those titles are only ceremonial and are not patriarchs in the correct sense of the term.

As for the OO, the Patriarchate of Ethiopia was not part of the original Pentarchy yet exists now.