Father, bless.Since with the exception of the OCA all American Eastern Orthodox are subject to the authority of their various mother churches, it would seem that they would follow the directions of their mother churches, which represent most of the rest of world Orthodoxy. For example, our practices concerning the reception of converts come from the practices of the Patriarchate. The Patriarchate of Antioch rejected the Oros of Cyril VI of 1755 as an innovation, because they did not follow what had been established practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church for centuries. I would suspect that the other Orthodox in America also follow the practices of their various mother churches.
Fr. John W. Morris
Yes there are variations in practice. There always have been since the beginning of the Church.Father, bless.
No doubt they are following their policies. All Baptisms are Orthodox…some from the outset, others made so by Chrismation. My only point was that there are variances of practice. Something that The Men in Black can sort out as God wills.
But I posted what I did because there is a problem with regard to the misuse of sacramental economy, and this is being acknowledged by the Orthodox at this North American Catholic/Orthodox Theological Convention. If you wish to read up on the whole convention, here’s the website:What a bunch of polemical nonsense (in the link provided, that is). The Church according even to Slavic theologians is never bound to accept the sacraments of the heterodox on the basis of some idea that sacraments outside of the church are efficacious in themselves if performed with proper form and intention (see the opinion, for example, of Metropolitan Sergei on the Apostolic Succession of the heterodox, who criticizes this very way of thinking as a materialistic conception of Apostolic Succession). Maybe Mr. Likoudis should learn some Orthodox theology before presuming to speak for the Eastern Slavs, who while not accepting the theory of sacramental economy of St. Nikodemos in its entirety, have a different theory of sacramental economy, which affirms the same praxis but with a different underlying theory, and do not accept wholesale the Augustinian understanding of sacramental theology (something which the West even did not take for granted until the 13th Century).
But, Father, it makes no sense to have such varied approaches when they contradict each other, i.e., how can a Catholic be received into Eastern Orthodoxy by Chrismation and/or baptism and/or a simple profession of faith, i.e., why is there no consistency with regard to how we are received when we are all of the same faith. I’m pretty sure that in Nicea there is a canon which stipulates how certain heretics were to be received, i.e., Nicodemians by such and such, Apollonarians by such and such. . . etc. I will try to find it for you.I have made a special detailed study of the reception of converts and served on the committee of the Antiochian Archdiocese that wrote our rules for the reception of converts. So, I can give a semi-authoritative answer to your question. Orthodox canon law gives Bishop certain latitude on this issue, provided he follows the guidelines established by the Holy Synod under which he serves. Very few Orthodox Bishops would instruct their clergy to receive Catholics by Baptism. Reception of Catholics by Baptism is definitely not the most widely accepted or, in my opinion, the most theologically sound way to receive a Catholic into the Orthodox Church. Most would receive Catholics by Chrismation, not Baptism. However, the prayer that has traditionally used is not the same prayer used in the service of Baptism when Chrismation is considered a completion of Baptism. Instead, the traditional prayer is one used for someone who has left the Orthodox Church and wants to return to the Orthodox Church. The prayer that is used with the Chrismation of a Protestant is the prayer that is used to complete Baptism. That shows that Eastern Orthodox recognize the Catholic Church and its Sacraments have a degree of validity that is lacking in Protestantism. It also shows a recognition of the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation.
However, the Russian traditional practice is to receive a Catholic into the Orthodox Church by a simple profession of faith.
Fr. John W. Morris
The canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church are the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, all of which were written before the schism. The canon that stipulates how non-Orthodox are to be received is canon 95 of the Council in Trullo of 692, The 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicea II in 787, ratified the Council in Trullo as a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680. Pan-Orthodox councils, Constantinople of 485 and Moscow in 1667, ruled that Catholics should be received by Chrismation. That is the standard followed by most Eastern Orthodox. However, it is a principle of Orthodox Canon law that a departure can be made from the standard mandated by canon law for a specific reason. However, this departure is an exception and does not negate the canon law not being followed strictly. The exception from normal practice concerning the reception of Catholics is the Decree (Oros) of Patriarch Cyril VI in 1755 which required that all non-Orthodox be received by Baptism. This was issued as a reaction to the persecution of Orthodox in Poland by Eastern Catholics and the Polish authorities. Today most Eastern Orthodox, including those in America under Constantinople do not follow the Oros of 1755, but receive Catholics by Chrismation which is the norm established by Pan-Orthodox councils.But, Father, it makes no sense to have such varied approaches when they contradict each other, i.e., how can a Catholic be received into Eastern Orthodoxy by Chrismation and/or baptism and/or a simple profession of faith, i.e., why is there no consistency with regard to how we are received when we are all of the same faith. I’m pretty sure that in Nicea there is a canon which stipulates how certain heretics were to be received, i.e., Nicodemians by such and such, Apollonarians by such and such. . . etc. I will try to find it for you.
God bless!
And many Ruthenian clergy were accepted by vesting. It’s been a widely varied praxis over the last 2 centuries.For all of these neat theories that attempt to rationalize Orthodox practices, the simple fact is that the overwhelming majroity of Catholics who entered into Orthodox communion over the years did so without baptism, chrismation of the first or second kind, or even with a particular profession of faith.
That is true. Today, the Russians will accept a Latin Rite or Eastern Rite Catholic Priest by vesting, provided he did not get married after he left the Catholic Priesthood because according to Eastern Orthodox canon law a Priest cannot get married. However, our Antiochian Orthodox Church, at least in North America, will receive a Catholic Priest who has gotten married since he left the Catholic Priesthood, as a layman and then ordain him if he meets the requirements. This is possible because the Orthodox Church does not treat ordination as indelible, like Baptism is indelible, but teaches that a Priest can be returned to the rank of a layman. Since a Catholic Priest who marries is suspended from the Priesthood by the Catholic Church, our Bishops treat that as equal to laicization, that is being returned to the rank of the laity. Therefore, when the man comes to us, he is a layman and no longer a Priest.And many Ruthenian clergy were accepted by vesting. It’s been a widely varied praxis over the last 2 centuries.