Met. Athanasios of Lemesou (Cyprus) Speaks Against Pope's Visit

[johnnykins]

This is from that article. Do I understand that it says they accepted converts and did not baptize them? That can’t be right.

“In Orthodox Church history, examples and instances of economy abound. Since ancient times, converts to the Church who were coming from certain heretical groups were not required to be baptized, even though the normal path of entrance to the Church was through baptism. Thus the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that under specific conditions, the application of economy (i.e. according to leniency) would be the norm in this matter. But since the usual rule is baptism, such leniency can easily be, and sometimes has been, suspended (usually in periods when the heretical groups in question were actively opposing the Church). In these cases, the Church returned to her customary usual rule of “exactness,” not applying economy (or not applying economy according to lenience). In calling for the reception of converts into Orthodoxy through means other than baptism in certain cases, the Ecumenical Councils made no determination regarding the existence of sacraments outside of Orthodoxy, but only addressed the situation of the convert to Orthodoxy.”

Some do and some don’t - complicated, yep!

 

[Erich]

This is from that article. Do I understand that it says they accepted converts and did not baptize them? That can’t be right.

I didn’t read the whole article (i.e. I just read the part you quoted) but it sounds analogous to the Catholic Church not rebaptising Episcopalians/Lutherans/Methodists/Presbyterians/etc. when they are received into the Church.

 

[GraceSofia]

I didn’t read the whole article (i.e. I just read the part you quoted) but it sounds analogous to the Catholic Church not rebaptising Episcopalians/Lutherans/Methodists/Presbyterians/etc. when they are received into the Church.

Oh, maybe. Because it said “since ancient times” I was thinking of the early centuries… and I thought they did not baptize some converts at all, but it must mean not re-baptizing them.

 

[johnnykins]

I didn’t read the whole article (i.e. I just read the part you quoted) but it sounds analogous to the Catholic Church not rebaptising Episcopalians/Lutherans/Methodists/Presbyterians/etc. when they are received into the Church.

actually no - it’s different in that under the Cyprian view heretics cannot confect any sacraments - they are devoid of grace. The Catholic view from St Augustine allows for the heretic to confect sacraments under certain circumstances. In the case of most Protestant baptisms the Augustinian view is that they are validly confected - hence no re-baptism. The application of economy in the Orthodox church is more that the grace lacking in the initial attempt has been effected elsewise by reason of the application by the Church of its power, qua Church, in the sacramental order. In other words, it’s closer to Ecclesia Supplet - the Church supplies what is missing. Of course, such a power seems to suppose that the defect of the heretical group is not one as to validity per se, but more along the lines of a legal impediment that the Church can waive whereby the invalidity itself is rectified. In that respect the whole thing becomes closer to the Augustinian position.

And, no doubt, Orthodox posters will at least quibble with that description. It is complicated.