J
josie_L
Guest
Please provide the ecumenical canon which states that all heretics must be baptized.
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, they do, otherwise what was the whole point behind Pope St. Stephen’s altercation with St. Cyprian of Carthage:
Again, bishops do not have the right to prescribe oikonomia in any which way or manner when there were ecumenical canons guiding the church on how to appropriately receive converts from various sects.
The Russian Orthodox Church is following the Traditions of the Church when it conforms to canon law with regard to the prescribed rites/customs of receiving converts.
I am referring to following prescribed canons as indicated by ecumenical councils, i.e., oikonomia does not mean allowing Bishops the liberty to do whatever they want vis a vis the reception of converts, i.e., they are beholden to Tradition, and Tradition specifies how converts from various sects/churches should be uniformly received.
Who are the heretics???
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The Penthekte specifically promulgated the apostolic canons, and Apostolic Canon 46 demands that the baptisms of all heretics be rejected. Similarly, Apostolic Canon 68 rejects the ordinations of all heretics. Similarly, the first Canon of St. Basil, also promulgated by the Penthekte, gives as a general rule that the baptisms of heretics are rejected. On the other hand, canon 95 of the Penthekte (following a canon from the Second Ecumenical Council) specifically establishes that certain types of heretics are received by chrismation. The First Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council likewise promulgates these canons, declaring that all the canons of the previous ecumenical councils, regional councils, and holy fathers, should be in force.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Note that the article you provided itself quotes the interpretation of St. Basil’s first canon, given by the Russian Church Abroad: “Thus, St. Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council in confirming the principle that there is no genuine baptism outside the Holy Orthodox Church, allows, out of pastoral condescension, which is called economy, the acceptance of certain heretics and schismatics without a new baptism.”
The article is thus not itself actually arguing that there exists true baptism outside of the Church, but rather that out of pastoral condescension and mercy, it is prudent to follow the general rule established by the Ecumenical Councils, namely that Those who have the least degree of dogmatic error are to be received by way of repentance and a repudiation of heresy, under the condition that their church structure preserved apostolic succession. Others, whose dogmatic teaching has undergone a greater distortion or who have not preserved apostolic succession although they were baptized as in the Orthodox Church in the name of the Holy Trinity by triple immersion, are to be received by the second rite, namely, by way of a repudiation of heretical distortions and anointing with the holy Chrism. The third group, whose baptism is not performed in the name of the Holy Trinity with triple immersion, is to be received by way of baptism, which also applies to Jews, Muslims and pagans. The teachings of this group of heretics usually consist of a complete innovation or an admixture of Judaism or paganism with the basic principles of Christianity. But in no way is there any kind of a church structure or apostolic succession, as we understand it.
Based, however, on this conclusion given by the author, I must say that your interpretation of the article is inconsistent. This is because if the author were arguing that the authority of Canon 95 of the Penthekte has bound the Church and made it impossible for bishops to select which rite should be used under any given circumstances (which is what you seem to be arguing), it would be untenable for the author then to quote St. Mark of Ephesus and the Synod of 1484, which did not prescribe that Latins be received by the third rite (as the principle derived from canon 95 of the Penthekte should imply), but by the second rite. Indeed, the differing canons do, from the Orthodox perspective, give the bishop or synod the ability to determine by which rite converts should be received, because as the oikonomos, the bishop has the power to determine how the canons should be applied.
It is true that a rigoristic position whereby one does not recognize any reception into the church besides that of the first rite is indeed not acceptable within Orthodoxy, but I have not seen anybody in this thread actually argue for such a position, only instead arguing that a certain diversity of practice is acceptable (indeed, the practice of the Russians to receive Latins by the third rite, despite earlier rulings that they should be received by the second rite is proof that the Russians recognize sacramental economy in principle).
J
josie_L
Guest
Cavaradossi, it is obvious from the canons that there were certain sects that were received into the church by various rites and customs (they were not all baptized), i.e., if the early church was able to prescribe a certain rite to all Arians, Macedonians, Paulinists, Quatrodecimans. . . . . etc., uniformly, than why is that not the case in the EO?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Because the acceptance of heterodox baptism was done as an act of mercy, and not as a recognition that heterodox baptism is true. Those canons were promulgated in the context of a specific time and place, and this uniformity was handed down with the end that the Church by mercy might be able to coax the heterodox to return from their heresies (see the first canon of St. Basil). But now in Orthodoxy, spread across many cultures and a far wider geographic span, rather than the smaller monolithic culture of the empire, a general rule could in fact be quite to the detriment to such an end.
Indeed, that these canons were not understood as establishing a general rule outside of their contextual placement is the fact that canon 95 of the Penthekte lays down the rule that Nestorians and Monophysites be received by third rite, that is, by submitting a libellus. By this fact, the same should also be true of the Latins, but instead we find that St. Mark of Ephesus and the synod of 1484 established that this should be done by the second rite, which is by chrismation.
A
AnthonyJ
Guest
What is Penthekte? Council of Trullo? Thank you.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Yes, the Penthekte is also known as Trullo. Since this seems to have turned into a debate over what is appropriate according to Orthodox canon law (that is to say, it seems that some certain posters are trying to tell the Orthodox posters what is and what is not the proper interpretation of our own canon law), the canons promulgated by the Penthekte (otherwise known as the council of Trullo) must be given special consideration, as the 102 canons of Trullo form a major basis of Orthodox canon law, and are regarded as being authoritative, not only on the authority of Trullo alone, but on the authority of the first canon of Nicaea II.
J
josie_L
Guest
I am using Orthodox sources, and it seems every time that I do, you refute them.
J
josie_L
Guest
But therein lies the problem, i.e., some Catholics are received by the EO via chrismation, others by renouncing their heresy, while quite a few are re-baptized, i.e., there is no uniformity even amongst converts from the same Church., and thus it seems Tradition is being ignored.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Just as the opinion of one theologian is not correct, so too the opinion of one archimandrite is not always correct. For example, Archimandrite Ambrosius chalks up the oros of 1755 to basically bigotry and declares that the threat of the Jesuits to the Greeks at the time was minimal. But this claim seems to be unfounded, as some of the most well-respected studies on this very topic (like Metropolitan Kallistos’ Eustratios Argenti) present plenty of evidence which does not agree with that thesis.
Furthermore, I cannot say that I agree with his thesis that canon 95 has bound the Church always to have to accept the baptisms of the heterodox who profess faith in the Holy Trinity and who baptize with proper form. Already we see that it is not a tenable interpretation of canon 95 of the Penthekte to suppose that it has has bound the Church to receive those who retain the external character of apostolic succession by the third rite, as the synod of 1484 explicitly declared that the reception should be done by second rite. Indeed, even in Russia, when the decision was made in 1667 not to baptize Latins, the decision initially was to receive converts by the second rite. In this, it should seem that the Russians themselves innovated in beginning to receive Latin converts by the third rite instead.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
And as I wrote, there is no uniformity at this time, because the conditions from place to place differ. Whereas it was profitable at one time to promulgate one rule for the empire, because the empire was rather culturally homogenous, it may not be profitable to promulgate a standard rule for Orthodoxy now, as her geographical breadth is far more expansive, and her situations many and varied. This is why the competency to establish a rule is left to the bishop or to the synod (as canon I of St. Basil implies it should be). If it is decided eventually that there should be made a uniform rule, like perhaps at the upcoming (God willing) synod scheduled for 2016, then that rule shall prevail instead. But in the absence of a general rule meant for our present situation, there can exist small discrepancies which do not matter sacramentally.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
There is at least one very good Orthodox parish in Lubbock, I believe it is St. Andrew’s (Greek). The priest there is very good.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
How far away from El Paso are you? I know there is an Antiochian church there.
A
andrewstx
Guest
A
andrewstx
Guest
Oh bye the way I have actually been in the Anticiohian church in EP back when I could still drive. It was around the corner from the former Episcopal pro-cathedral. I was Episcopal at the time as was St. Clements.
That was when I was first checking into Orthodoxy, and that church was a historical landmark, by Trost and Trost. But they have relocated and I do not know if the old church was demolished. I sure hope not!
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
That’s hardly more than going around the block for you West Texans!
- Status