"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[Jon_S_1]

Is there a liturgy attached to recognizing a baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church?

This was posted on the Orthodox thread I started this week. (I’m learning about all this orthodox stuff now too, I thought we were much closer to them but perhaps not)

Quote:
Originally Posted by josie L
No, it does not mean that their baptism was inefficacious, canon 7 of the second council of Constantinople:

How do you interpret this canon?

I interpret that canon in light of the totality of Canon Law, and in light of how canonists interpreted these canons. Among the most relevant are canons 1 of St. Basil, and canons 46 and 47 of the Apostolic Canons. The canonists, Zonaras, Blastares and Harmenopoulos all treat these canons in a similar way, so it should only be necessary to touch on a few of them.

Zonaras understands that the baptisms of schismatics such as the Novatians were accepted by oikonomia, commenting that oikonomia was used because the use of akriveia would would have caused the Novatians to hesitate to come into the Church. But with regards to others, we are obliged, according to St. Basil, to reject their baptisms outright, even if they recognize our baptisms, and to apply akriveia (that is, to baptize them). However, according to Zonaras in his interpretations of other canons, if another rule be laid down allowing for the use of oikonomia, that rule should be followed, as it supersedes the earlier rule of akriveia.

Blastares similarly comments on the first Canon of St. Basil, remarking that originally according to this rule of St. Basil, all baptisms of those who differed in faith were rejected, while the baptisms of schismatics were to be accepted, even though the ancient authorities (according to St. Basil) rejected the baptisms of schismatics as inefficacious. Novatians were to be accepted by oikonomia (the same analysis as Zonaras).

The basic implication of these canons is that these baptisms have no efficacy in themselves. They are rather given a potentiality for efficacy if the Church recognizes them as being acceptable for reception by oikonomia, by which they are filled and completed by the grace of the Holy Spirit."

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=853879&page=10

 

[Jon_S_1]

Is there a liturgy attached to recognizing a baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church?

I came across this as well. It may make the issue more clear.

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/The-Manner-of-Reception-of-Roman-Catholic-Converts-into-the-Orthodox-Church-Fr-George-Dragas.pdf

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Can you cite an example of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence of Christ on Lutheran altars? And the same question to Orthodox regarding Catholic altars.

The Catholic view is not that all Lutheran services are necessarily devoid of a valid Eucharist. However, it is a Catholic belief that it is necessary for all valid sacraments to be administered by the proper minister: in this case, a priest. However, the Catholic view is that Lutheran orders are generally invalid because they have not preserved the practice of episcopal ordination and they have not preserved a sufficient understanding of the sacraments and the priesthood (like the Anglicans). However, it could be that particular individual Lutheran ministers do have valid orders by various means. It is just that the majority presumably are not valid priests. However, if a Lutheran minister were a valid priest, according to Catholic sacramental theology, it could be that his Eucharist is a valid one.

For the Eastern Orthodox, there does not appear to be a universal consensus.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Orthodox view is not necessarily transubstantiation. It’s more similar to the Lutheran view.

This is not historically true. The Orthodox traditionally believe in transubstantiation, even though they do not usually use that word. Transubstantiation was explicitly taught at the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672. Read Decree 17 of the Confession of Dositheus.

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

…

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.

…
crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Read the Lutherans’ Formula of Concord and you will see that here and in the paragraphs I excluded they are consistently rejecting Lutheran positions in favor of the Catholic ones. The council was called as an affirmation of Orthodoxy against Protestantism after the patriarch of Constantinople succumbed to Calvinist influences. It is the closest thing to an Orthodox Council of Trent.

 

[Peter_J]

This is not historically true. The Orthodox traditionally believe in transubstantiation, even though they do not usually use that word.

I really don’t want to get in deep here, but just one little comment: the word “transubstantiation” is used in two slightly different ways. Some Catholics use it to mean just what Catholics are required to believe and no more; some Catholics understand the term to go slightly beyond what Catholics are required to believe, in terms of how the change takes place. (Similar to the situation with the word “Purgatory”.)

Read the Lutherans’ Formula of Concord and you will see that here and in the paragraphs I excluded they are consistently rejecting Lutheran positions in favor of the Catholic ones.

Not to split hairs, but on this forum I generally take “Catholic” (as distinct from “catholic”) to refer strictly to the Roman Communion (unless otherwise specified, e.g. posters who are Anglo-Catholic).

 

[JamesTheJust]

This is not historically true. The Orthodox traditionally believe in transubstantiation, even though they do not usually use that word. Transubstantiation was explicitly taught at the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672. Read Decree 17 of the Confession of Dositheus.

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

…

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.

…
crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Read the Lutherans’ Formula of Concord and you will see that here and in the paragraphs I excluded they are consistently rejecting Lutheran positions in favor of the Catholic ones. The council was called as an affirmation of Orthodoxy against Protestantism after the patriarch of Constantinople succumbed to Calvinist influences. It is the closest thing to an Orthodox Council of Trent.

OK. I was just going by what I had read from Orthodox bloggers and the like.

 

[steido01]

This is not historically true. The Orthodox traditionally believe in transubstantiation, even though they do not usually use that word. Transubstantiation was explicitly taught at the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672. Read Decree 17 of the Confession of Dositheus.
…

Read the Lutherans’ Formula of Concord and you will see that here and in the paragraphs I excluded they are consistently rejecting Lutheran positions in favor of the Catholic ones. The council was called as an affirmation of Orthodoxy against Protestantism after the patriarch of Constantinople succumbed to Calvinist influences. It is the closest thing to an Orthodox Council of Trent.

The 1672 Synod of Jerusalem was, first and foremost, a response to Calvinist influences within the Orthodox Churches.

Secondarily, it was a response to the Orthodox perception of Lutheranism, which was barely distinguishable from Calvinism, as far as they were concerned. This was likely due to the effects of Crypto-Calvinism. Orthodoxy wasn’t so much responding to the actual Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s Supper as it was (rightfully) condemning the Calvinistic view that the Orthodox perceived to be the Lutheran view - no thanks to the “Lutheran” Calvinists who were publicly preaching at the time. I think the section you posted demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Lutheran position by the Synod. They (mistakenly) didn’t see a noticeable difference between Luther and Calvin. This is seen elsewhere in the Synod’s decrees:

…For the notions of Luther and Calvin are really very much alike, though they seem to differ in some particulars…

Obviously, Luther and Calvin are not at all alike in regards to the Eucharist.

Of course, all of this doesn’t necessarily mean that the East is more inclined toward Sacramental Union or Transubstantiation. I’d think the Orthodox would refuse being grouped with either group - they’d probably claim to the “right” view instead.

I recommend this excerpt from the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues, which more accurately reflects the Lutheran view. Note what both communions profess together concerning the Eucharist:

helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lut…text.html#euch

 

[steido01]

Also, I recommend this excerpt from the Lutheran Orthodox Dialogues. Note what both profess together concerning the Eucharist:

helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#euch

 

[FrDavid96]

Can you cite an example of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence of Christ on Lutheran altars? And the same question to Orthodox regarding Catholic altars.

Yes. Plenty of examples.

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord’s Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

It’s important to note that the Catholic Church, in official documents, never refers to “Lutheran Communion” or “Lutheran Eucharist” because, from the Catholic perspective, unless the bread is consecrated by a validly ordained priest, it is not-Communion.

Catholics believe that when our separated brethren gather to commemorate the Lord’s Supper, Christ is present among them, but Christ is not present in the bread because without a validly ordained priest, the Eucharist simply does not occur.

Catholics can say “Lutherans believe that Christ is present in/with the bread.” That’s all well and good, but we cannot say that Catholics agree with that belief.

 

[benjohnson]

but not on the question of Who has “validity”? despite how disappointing that can be to you Lutherans.

And if a Lutheran is troubled by this, then they need to study with their pastor a bit more. A mere billion humans telling us that our eucharist is invalid had absolutly nothing to do with God’s promise to us.

 

[Porknpie]

And if a Lutheran is troubled by this, then they need to study with their pastor a bit more. A mere billion humans telling us that our eucharist is invalid had absolutly nothing to do with God’s promise to us.

Hi Ben,

What is your view on this: What type of power, degree and or authority does a Priest, Pastor or Preacher or even layman need to have to turn the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

Tx,

PnP

 

[FrDavid96]

Sorry Father David but I don’t agree with your assessment since the Dialogue clearly states that the belief in the Real Presence is not “church dividing”. The entire scope of the Dialogues and summary per ‘From Conflict to Communion’ is to identify what we believe in common and how we can live with our minor differences.

What you aren’t seeing here is that the Dialogue does not represent the totality of the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter.

Yes, the Catholic representatives do indeed legitimately represent the Church (it is, after all, a “Pontifical Commission”). Yet, they can only speak the teachings of the Church, they have no authority to change that teaching—nor are they attempting to do so.

What you are doing, though, is ascribing much more to their words than they are actually saying. I keep repeating this point, but it’s just not getting through. They can say “Catholics accept that Lutherans believe this” but that is not the same thing as saying “Catholics also believe that what Lutherans say is accurate.” Those 2 sentences do not mean the same thing. They simply do not mean what you are trying to make them mean.

One must read the words of the Dialogue very carefully to see the subtle difference.

Catholics accept that both Catholics and Lutherans believe in a “Real Presence” of Christ in Communion. However, Catholics do not believe that in the Lutheran commemoration of the Lord’s Supper, Christ is present in/with the bread, but rather that Christ is present with the community of believers.

 

[benjohnson]

Hi Ben,

What is your view on this: What type of power, degree and or authority does a Priest, Pastor or Preacher or even layman need to have to turn the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

Tx,

PnP

Speaking as a ignorant layman- I invite correction from any Lutherans!

We don’t say the minister ‘power’ or 'authority 's convert anything - let alone bread into the true Body and Blood of our Lord.

God does this!

The Body and Blood are gifts from God for the people of God. The Lord will know when it is His Devine Service, and we know that He has done this for us because in these last days God has spoken to us through his Son.

 

[steido01]

Speaking as a ignorant layman- I invite correction from any Lutherans!

We don’t say the minister ‘power’ or 'authority 's convert anything - let alone bread into the true Body and Blood of our Lord.

God does this!

The Body and Blood are gifts from God for the people of God. The Lord will know when it is His Devine Service, and we know that He has done this for us because in these last days God has spoken to us through his Son.

I would add the Augsburg Confession:

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

 

[benjohnson]

Let me add: I don’t fault the Catholic position that your need this person touching that person in the right place and with the right words - it’s a source of comfort for those that need assurances that appeal to their need for authority and legitimacy as a balm against worry. It’s also a practical safeguard against many problems.

The trouble with Catholics convincing Lutherans comes when we Lutherans recognize that any worthwhile legitimacy always springs from God, then the question diligent record-keeping countering doubt and worry become mute. When you have God’s hand on your shoulder shaking from your animal-death and bringing you into new life in Him - the fact that your minister never was ‘tagged’ becomes an irrelevant detail.

 

[benjohnson]

I would add the Augsburg Confession:

Oh shush with your Augsburg Confession!

It hinders all our degradation of the church and deflects out attempts to create a new political god of social justice - it must be forgotten.

[The proceeding was brought to you by Lutheran Sarcasm™]

 

[Peter_J]

And if a Lutheran is troubled by this, then they need to study with their pastor a bit more. A mere billion humans telling us that our eucharist is invalid had absolutly nothing to do with God’s promise to us.

I am shocked to hear that you think that way! Well, okay, maybe I’m not … I would think that our reasoning, rather than our numbers, is what would convince you. (Although to be honest, I don’t see the Catholic Church making any great effort to convince you that you don’t have valid orders.)

 

[benjohnson]

I am shocked to hear that you think that way! Well, okay, maybe I’m not … I would think that our reasoning, rather than our numbers, is what would convince you. (Although to be honest, I don’t see the Catholic Church making any great effort to convince you that you don’t have valid orders.)

There’s a tiny chance that I may have engaged in hyperbole.

Indeed the Papal Bulls directed at us Lutherans have trickled to nothingness - if anything, Pope Benedict XVI’s writings give us hope of, at least, mutual respect.

The biggest obstacle convincing us Lutherans is the soundest of reasoning is nothing in the presence of God’s Mystery. Or, more likely, we’re just stubborn.

 

[steido01]

Oh shush with your Augsburg Confession!

It hinders all our degradation of the church and deflects out attempts to create a new political god of social justice - it must be forgotten.

[The proceeding was brought to you by Lutheran Sarcasm™]

Wait a minute. Some people actually think this. Oh, dear… :crying:

 

[benjohnson]

This was posted on the Orthodox thread I started this week. (I’m learning about all this orthodox stuff now too, I thought we were much closer to them but perhaps not)

We’re a long ways apart, but at the same time, very close.

The local Orthodox have been debating a local Lutheran pastor for the last few years, then all of a sudden they commission Orthodox icons (in English no less) and give them to the Lutheran church!

http://johnsoncn.com/orthodox-icons.jpg

I need to get a better photo - that was done in the dark: The suffering church is to the left of Jesus, and the triumphant church is on the right but cropped.