Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[mardukm]

Dear brother sidbrown,

If they are not under Rome, how come it was Cardinal Ratzinger who turned down the Zoghby initiative of the Melchite Church?

Pope St. Cyril himself did not deign to break communion with Nestorius until he sought the judgment of Pope St. Celestine. St. Cyprian himself taught that if heretics were not in communion with the See of Peter in Rome, they were not Catholic. Such examples abound in the early Church. The bishop of Rome is as a big brother to the other bishops, and all bishops, the bishops of Rome included, are under the authority of the Truth. All their actions must be in service of the Truth. If the elder brother exhorts his other brothers to the Truth, and the other brother concede, then all have done their duty for the Truth.

Now, the goal of the Zoghby Initiative is highly praisworthy. I have little doubt that Melkites have reconciled Latin and Eastern ideologies and theologies, but have their EO counterparts done so? And even if their EO counterparts have done so, have the other EOC’s done so? And even if these have reconciled Latin and Eastern ideologies/theologies, can these EO accept the Oriental and CoE expressions of the same basic Faith that the Catholic Church has adjudged to be orthodox? Unity cannot be attained for the sake of unity itself. Unity must have its basis in Truth. I believe Rome acted prudently in service of the Truth. And the response of the Melkite bishops in adhereing to the exhortations of their elder brother is also to be seen as an action in the service of the Truth.

And how come Cardinal Ratzinger turned down the request by the Ruthenian Church for a more liberal attituded toward married priests in the USA?

The Ruthenian Catholic Church is a Major Archepiscopal Church (please correct me, brothers if I’m wrong), not a Patriarchal Church. Their Supreme patriarch is the Bishop of Rome.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

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.

Well, that kind of explains the matter, no?

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

The Church of Ethiopia is autocephalous, but really functions autonomously. I recall brother Michael (Hesychios) pointing out in a past post that even autonomous EOC’s are more autocephalic in practice. It is a different mindset among the Orientals.

Also, check this out: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6738131&postcount=4

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

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”.

I almost missed your post. Thank you for bringing these up.

As you might know, the general consensus is that these canons were compiled before the 4th century. Obviously, the canons I quoted from the Ecum Councils, which have full authority in the Church, clarify the position of the Church on the matter. These canons you quote reject heretical baptism, but it does not touch upon the question of “what makes a baptism valid?” Is it only because it was administered by heretics, or is there another underlying reason. And neither did the primordial Church distinguish much between heretics and schismatics. This demonstrates the development of doctrine in the Church on the matter. And her maturing understanding is reflected in the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils (not just with regards to baptism, but ordination as well).

So the canons you quoted do not contradict the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils. They merely reflect a more primordial understanding of the matter that the Ecumenical Councils at a later time refined and perfected with the authority of Christ.

As regards Canon 50. one should be careful, I think, about using this canon to give a categorical dogmatic importance to the action of three immersions per se. ISTM that the main point of the Canon is not the three immersions, but what the three immersions represent - and hence, the explanation given by the Canon of what the 3 immersions mean. Further, the Canon does not merely say that it opposes one immersion, but rather - more fully and more specifically - “one immersion into the death of the Lord.” If you were not aware, the Eunomians did exactly that. If you recall, the Eunomians were one of the several heresies whose baptism was rejected by the Second Ecum Council.

There is much early Church witness recognizing the validity of baptism if only pouring occurs because of the insufficiency of water, or some other extenuating circumstance. This indicates that triple immersion is not an essential element of Baptism.

Bottom line – the Lord did not institute triple immersion. It was instituted by the Church for the sake of a very relevant symbolism. It is unimaginable (to me, anyway) that what is symbolic becomes the sine qua non of the Sacrament to the extent that the lack of it makes the Sacrament invalid, and becomes a cause of division - that is legalism at its best.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

Dear brother sidbrown,

Pope St. Cyril himself did not deign to break communion with Nestorius until he sought the judgment of Pope St. Celestine. St. Cyprian himself taught that if heretics were not in communion with the See of Peter in Rome, they were not Catholic. Such examples abound in the early Church. The bishop of Rome is as a big brother to the other bishops, and all bishops, the bishops of Rome included, are under the authority of the Truth. All their actions must be in service of the Truth. If the elder brother exhorts his other brothers to the Truth, and the other brother concede, then all have done their duty for the Truth.

Now, the goal of the Zoghby Initiative is highly praisworthy. I have little doubt that Melkites have reconciled Latin and Eastern ideologies and theologies, but have their EO counterparts done so? And even if their EO counterparts have done so, have the other EOC’s done so? And even if these have reconciled Latin and Eastern ideologies/theologies, can these EO accept the Oriental and CoE expressions of the same basic Faith that the Catholic Church has adjudged to be orthodox? Unity cannot be attained for the sake of unity itself. Unity must have its basis in Truth. I believe Rome acted prudently in service of the Truth. And the response of the Melkite bishops in adhereing to the exhortations of their elder brother is also to be seen as an action in the service of the Truth.

The Ruthenian Catholic Church is a Major Archepiscopal Church (please correct me, brothers if I’m wrong), not a Patriarchal Church. Their Supreme patriarch is the Bishop of Rome.

Blessings

So in the end, the Eastern Catholic Churches are under Rome (oops, or should we say under the Truth).

 

[sidbrown]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

I almost missed your post. Thank you for bringing these up.

As you might know, the general consensus is that these canons were compiled before the 4th century. Obviously, the canons I quoted from the Ecum Councils, which have full authority in the Church, clarify the position of the Church on the matter. These canons you quote reject heretical baptism, but it does not touch upon the question of “what makes a baptism valid?” Is it only because it was administered by heretics, or is there another underlying reason. And neither did the primordial Church distinguish much between heretics and schismatics. This demonstrates the development of doctrine in the Church on the matter. And her maturing understanding is reflected in the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils (not just with regards to baptism, but ordination as well).

So the canons you quoted do not contradict the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils. They merely reflect a more primordial understanding of the matter that the Ecumenical Councils at a later time refined and perfected with the authority of Christ.

As regards Canon 50. one should be careful, I think, about using this canon to give a categorical dogmatic importance to the action of three immersions per se. ISTM that the main point of the Canon is not the three immersions, but what the three immersions represent - and hence, the explanation given by the Canon of what the 3 immersions mean. Further, the Canon does not merely say that it opposes one immersion, but rather - more fully and more specifically - “one immersion into the death of the Lord.” If you were not aware, the Eunomians did exactly that. If you recall, the Eunomians were one of the several heresies whose baptism was rejected by the Second Ecum Council.

There is much early Church witness recognizing the validity of baptism if only pouring occurs because of the insufficiency of water, or some other extenuating circumstance. This indicates that triple immersion is not an essential element of Baptism.

Bottom line – the Lord did not institute triple immersion. It was instituted by the Church for the sake of a very relevant symbolism. It is unimaginable (to me, anyway) that what is symbolic becomes the sine qua non of the Sacrament to the extent that the lack of it makes the Sacrament invalid, and becomes a cause of division - that is legalism at its best.

Blessings,
Marduk

The problem is that many Orthodox reject RC baptism for one or more reasons:

1. Baptism by heretics is invalid.
2. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring is invalid.
   Many Orthodox maintain 1 and/or 2, do they not?

 

[mardukm]

So in the end, the Eastern Catholic Churches are under Rome (oops, or should we say under the Truth).

That would be in service of the Truth.

It is probably hard for the legalistic Latin (not saying that all Latins are legalistic) to conceive of agreement between the head and the body as a matter of unanimity for the sake of Truth. The legalistic Latin will always view it in terms of “who is boss,” whereas an Oriental such as myself will always view it as “what can be done in our common service for Christ and his Church.”

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

The problem is that many Orthodox reject RC baptism for one or more reasons:

1. Baptism by heretics is invalid.
2. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring is invalid.
   Many Orthodox maintain 1 and/or 2, do they not?

And?

If they maintain #1, they would be opposing the Ecumenical Councils, or making Sacred Tradition contradict itself (by trying to set up the apostolic canons in opposition to the canons of Ecumenical Councils).

If they maintain #2, they are being legalistic. That’s their problem, and they can deal with it before the Judgment seat where I imagine Jesus will be saying, “I wanted you to be united in the Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet, you put a stumbling block to my command.” Fortunately, I don’t think many or even most Orthodox do this.

Blessings

 

[Vico]

That would be in service of the Truth.

It is probably hard for the legalistic Latin (not saying that all Latins are legalistic) to conceive of agreement between the head and the body as a matter of unanimity for the sake of Truth. The legalistic Latin will always view it in terms of “who is boss,” whereas an Oriental such as myself will always view it as “what can be done in our common service for Christ and his Church.”

Blessings

I have been thinking about this issue. Imagine if every Catholic Church sui iuris has one hierarch in charge at the top; 23 total, but some have no hierarch now. Also one of those is the Latin Church. So we have the Pope as the head of the universal church and of the Latin Church, and the following heads of the patriarchial and major archipiscopal Churches sui iuris:

Pope Bennedict XVI (Latin)
Patriarchal Vicar Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir (Maronite)
Patriarch Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly (Chaldean)
Patriarch Nersès Bédros XIX Tarmouni (Armenian)
Patriarch Gregorios III Laham (Melkite)
Patriarch Ignace Youssif III Younan (Syrian)
Patriarch Antonios Naguib (Coptic)
Major Archbishop Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, M.S.U. (Ukrainian)
Major Archbishop Cardinal Mar Varkey Vithayathil, C.SS.R. (Syro-Malabar)
Major Archbishop Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankar)
Major Archbishop Lucian Mureşan (Romanian)

Then the following Churches sui iuris have various eparchies or exarchies reporting to the Holy See through an eparch or exarch bishop of the same or different ritual church, or through an apostolic administrator, or apostolic visitator of the same or different ritual church:

Ethiopian-Eritrean (Addis Abeba) – metropolitan
Byzantine Ruthenian (Pittsburgh) – metropolitan
Byzantine Ruthenian (Mukacheve) - eparchy
Byzantine Ruthenian (Czech) – apostolic exarchate
Slovak (Prešov) – metropolitan
Hungarian (Hajdúdorog) – eparchy
Hungarian (Miskolc) – apostolic exarchate
Italo-Albanian (Piana degli Albanesi) eparchy
Italo-Albanian (Lungro degli Albanesi) eparchy
Italo-Albanian (Santa Maria di Grottaferrata) abbacy
Križevci (Croatia) – eparchy
Serbia and Montenegro - apostolic exarchate
Albanian – apostolic administration
Bulgarian (Sofia) – apostolic exarchate
Macedonian – apostolic exarchate
Greek – apostolic exarchate
Russian – apostolic administration
Belarusian – apostolic visitor

 

[sidbrown]

And?

If they maintain #1, they would be opposing the Ecumenical Councils, or making Sacred Tradition contradict itself (by trying to set up the apostolic canons in opposition to the canons of Ecumenical Councils).

If they maintain #2, they are being legalistic. That’s their problem, and they can deal with it before the Judgment seat where I imagine Jesus will be saying, “I wanted you to be united in the Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet, you put a stumbling block to my command.” Fortunately, I don’t think many or even most Orthodox do this.

Blessings

Do you recommend ignoring the apostolic canons of the Church?

 

[mardukm]

Do you recommend ignoring the apostolic canons of the Church?

I recommend understanding them in the context of the whole Tradition of the Church.

Besides, it’s not as if the Church accepts or ever accepted just any baptism done by heretics, so the Apostolic Canons are still valid according to the paradigm I’ve proposed. On the other hand, those who present the Apostolic Canons in opposition to the Conciliar Canons simply debase the authority, reliability, and intergrity of the Church.

Blessings

 

[trophybearer]

And?

If they maintain #1, they would be opposing the Ecumenical Councils, or making Sacred Tradition contradict itself (by trying to set up the apostolic canons in opposition to the canons of Ecumenical Councils).

If they maintain #2, they are being legalistic. That’s their problem, and they can deal with it before the Judgment seat where I imagine Jesus will be saying, “I wanted you to be united in the Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet, you put a stumbling block to my command.” Fortunately, I don’t think many or even most Orthodox do this.

Blessings

Wow. You speak for our Lord Jesus Christ as Judge? That’s the funny thing about imaginations: pagans use them to create their Gods; I use it to come up with ideas for paintings, and you use it to negate the canons and pronounce the eternal judgement that belongs to God alone.

 

[sidbrown]

Wow. You speak for our Lord Jesus Christ as Judge? That’s the funny thing about imaginations: pagans use them to create their Gods; I use it to come up with ideas for paintings, and you use it to negate the canons and pronounce the eternal judgement that belongs to God alone.

Interesting observation.
How do you view the Apostolic canons of the Church? Would you say that for baptism they require triple immersion or that they question the baptism of heretics?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trophybearer,

Wow. You speak for our Lord Jesus Christ as Judge? That’s the funny thing about imaginations: pagans use them to create their Gods; I use it to come up with ideas for paintings, and you use it to negate the canons

Can you show us an ancient universal canon that states unequivocally that the lack of triple immersion makes a baptism invalid?

The only canons I know of always qualify the idea of immersion with its intent as a symbolism for dying and rising with Christ. This intent of dying and rising with Christ has always been present in the Latin ritual. The question is, does the lack of the symbolism that immersion affords somehow invalidate the Sacrament?

That’s unimaginable, especially since archaeological discoveries of ancient baptismal fonts indicate that a majority of them could not accomodate adult immersion. What occurred, according to the architecture, was that the catechumen would stand in the font and have water poured on his/her head. Are you going to say that thousands of Christians in the early Church were not really baptized?

So there’s no question of negating canons here. It’s a matter of understanding their intent, and interpreting them in the context of historic reality (i.e., the archaelogical evidence mentioned above). With regards to the immersion canons, I don’t see an absolute prohibition of non-immersion. In fact, according to Apostolic Canon 50, it’s not even immersion that is the point of the Canon, since the wrong practice it was combatting also practiced immersion. Rather, ISTM the Canon stresses the necessity of the sign of three as opposed to merely one. Further, the very symbolism that immersion as an action represents (uniting with the death of Christ) is repudiated as insufficient, indicating that even that symbolism is not absolutely necessary for the Sacrament to be valid.

and pronounce the eternal judgement that belongs to God alone.

Telling a Christian “your baptism is invalid” is a judgment, no? Maybe those certain EOC’s who don’t accept the validity of Catholic Baptism shouldn’t be so judgmental.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Interesting observation.
How do you view the Apostolic canons of the Church? Would you say that for baptism they require triple immersion or that they question the baptism of heretics?

HOLD ON!!! This sounds like the last few sentences of my previous post! Can we actually be coming to a meeting of minds?

Is there a new world order?

Did I just see a pig fly?

Should we expect the Second Coming soon?

hehehehehe. You must forgive me for my bombastic exclamations. Never thought I’d live to see the day that you’d write something that I can relate to.

It is a pleasant surprise, Sid.

Blessings

 

[JohnVIII]

As you might know, the general consensus is that these canons were compiled before the 4th century. Obviously, the canons I quoted from the Ecum Councils, which have full authority in the Church, clarify the position … This demonstrates the development of doctrine in the Church on the matter. And her maturing understanding is reflected in the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils (not just with regards to baptism, but ordination as well).

The canons of the holy apostles became officially recognized by the church by the 6th Ecumenical Council. In the 6th Ecumenical the canons of St. Basil and the first canon of St. Cyprian were also elevated to the level of ecumenical force. You would surely cry “legalism” if I were to quote from the canons of St. Basil or of St. Cyprian! Since they became “ecumenical” as late as the 6th Ecumenical Council what does that say about the “the development of doctrine in the Church”?

So the canons you quoted do not contradict the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils. They merely reflect a more primordial understanding of the matter that the Ecumenical Councils at a later time refined and perfected with the authority of Christ.

Once again how was the understanding refined even later - at the 6th Ecumenical?

Bottom line – the Lord did not institute triple immersion. It was instituted by the Church for the sake of a very relevant symbolism. It is unimaginable (to me, anyway) that what is symbolic becomes the sine qua non of the Sacrament to the extent that the lack of it makes the Sacrament invalid, and becomes a cause of division - that is legalism at its best

I don’t know that there is any proof that the Lord did not institute triple immersion but the Church did. But it doesn’t matter, the authority of its institution is the same; unless your trying to say that the Church was wrong to do so and went against the will of the Lord. I don’t think you are saying that are you?

Now about legalism. The fact that you’re referring to baptism as being “valid” or “invalid” shows that you’re thinking legalistically. “ Valid “ is a legal term. It is very true, legalism not only causes division but it makes our focus on law instead of grace. “Economy” is possible because grace does not come through law. Economy has always been used by the Bishops because, as St. Basil in his first canon explains, it is actually possible to get in the way of someone’s salvation by being too strict in regards to the canons.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

The canons of the holy apostles became officially recognized by the church by the 6th Ecumenical Council. In the 6th Ecumenical the canons of St. Basil and the first canon of St. Cyprian were also elevated to the level of ecumenical force. You would surely cry “legalism” if I were to quote from the canons of St. Basil or of St. Cyprian!

I don’t see your point, for three reasons.

1. The Council of Trullo was never considered part of the Sixth Ecumenical by the Western Church, and there are some canons from it which even the OO would find distasteful. So whatever Trullo accepted does not necessarily indicate Ecumenical status.
2. The Seventh Ecumenical Council did not affirm all of the decisions of Trullo, but did affirm Trullo’s recognition of the past orthodox local synods. The 7th Ecum does not seem to have affirmed the canons from non-synodal sources (e.g., from St. Basil, the Apostolic Canons, etc.)
3. The 7th Ecum recognized all past local orthodox synods, but these Synods proposed different canons of Scripture. Are we to say the Church contradicted herself? Far from it. The affirmation simply meant the 7th Ecum. recognized the diversity in praxis throughout the Church. Hence, even if the 7th recognized certain canons from Trullo referring to triple immersion, such canons would have at best local relevance, and would not dictate its necessity for non-Eastern jurisdictions.

Since they became “ecumenical” as late as the 6th Ecumenical Council what does that say about the “the development of doctrine in the Church”? Once again how was the understanding refined even later - at the 6th Ecumenical?

I don’t see how their future recognition by a local synod (i.e., Trullo) has any significance. The fact of the matter is that they existed prior to Nice 1 and Constantinople 1. Thus, the Nicean and Constantinopolitan canons I quoted must be seen as a development in the Church as her understanding matured on the matter.

I don’t know that there is any proof that the Lord did not institute triple immersion but the Church did.

Well, the Lord did not say so when he instituted the Sacrament. And there is no indication of a triple immersion, but rather only a single immersion when Scripture records Baptism in Acts. Our earliest record of the Rite of Baptism (the Didache) does not mention a triple immersion. Neither does the Epistle of Barnabas from the turn of the 1st century mention a triple immersion when it describes baptism. The same with the Shepherd of Hermas in its description of baptism. The first time triple immersion is mentioned is in the 3rd century with Tertullian, who nevertheless did not impose its absolute necessity.

But it doesn’t matter, the authority of its institution is the same;

I have to disagree. What is instituted by the Lord Himself or His Apostles holds a special significance/importance for the Church. That is why every dogma of the Church must be consonant with Scripture first of all.

unless your trying to say that the Church was wrong to do so and went against the will of the Lord. I don’t think you are saying that are you?

The Church was not wrong to institute triple immersion, but triple immersion was never a universally approved practice. What is wrong is for a Church today to make triple immersion a condition for orthodoxy (i.e., “your baptism is invalid if there was no triple immersion”). Triple immersion is not a dogma – it is a practice with great symbolic significance. To turn a practice into a dogma, and use the practice as a stumbling block to unity is just wrong.

Now about legalism. The fact that you’re referring to baptism as being “valid” or “invalid” shows that you’re thinking legalistically. “ Valid “ is a legal term.

I see we have different understanding of the term “legalism.” I use the term in the biblical sense - i.e., adherence to law that results in harm instead of good. Just because “valid” is a legal term has nothing to do with legalism.

It is very true, legalism not only causes division but it makes our focus on law instead of grace. “Economy” is possible because grace does not come through law. Economy has always been used by the Bishops because, as St. Basil in his first canon explains, it is actually possible to get in the way of someone’s salvation by being too strict in regards to the canons.

You obviously understand what legalism is. So I find your statement above ““valid” is a legal term, therefore you are thinking legalistically” very strange and puzzling.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I had intended to mention it to you in my last post, but then forgot as got into writing the response — I just wanted to let you know that you are still in my prayers.

 

[sidbrown]

Well, the Lord did not say so when he instituted the Sacrament. .

The Lord did not say that a Catholic has to have a priest present as a witness for a valid Sacrament of Marriage to take place. The Lord did not say that in the Latin Church a bishop will administer Confirmation. Etc.

 

[mardukm]

The Lord did not say that a Catholic has to have a priest present as a witness for a valid Sacrament of Marriage to take place.

Uhhhh.: That’s something he did not have to speak on because it was nothing new. Marriage has always been celebrated with and by a sacred minister. Ask the Jews if you don’t beleive me.

The Lord did not say that in the Latin Church a bishop will administer Confirmation. Etc.

Uhhhh. The example of the Apostles who dispensed the Holy Spirit is sufficient proof of the divine establishment of that feature of the Sacrament.

Blessings.

 

[sidbrown]

Uhhhh.: That’s something he did not have to speak on because it was nothing new. Marriage has always been celebrated with and by a sacred minister. Ask the Jews if you don’t beleive me.

Uhhhh. The example of the Apostles who dispensed the Holy Spirit is sufficient proof of the divine establishment of that feature of the Sacrament.

Blessings.

In the west, the priest is a witness to the marriage whereas in the East, the priest is the one who marries the couple. Further, in the west the bishop confers the confirmation, whereas in the East the priest confers the chrismation. The Lord did not say that it was to be done in the West differently from how it is done in the East.

 

[Formosus]

In the west, the priest is a witness to the marriage whereas in the East, the priest is the one who marries the couple. Further, in the west the bishop confers the confirmation, whereas in the East the priest confers the chrismation. The Lord did not say that it was to be done in the West differently from how it is done in the East.

Priests can do confirmation in the west as well, in cases where the Bishop can’t get to a parish to do it.