Two questions about the EC & EO

[dvdjs]

The thing is that Orthodox will never agree to having a “sufficient level of agreement” or whatever be the standard by which we determine who to be in communion with, so things like this Melkite proposal just fall flat. There can be pastoral agreements, there can be other types of cooperation in Christian love and charity, but full and open communion? You need full and complete agreement on Orthodox terms for that to happen.

Sounds reasonable, but…

It is crystal clear from discussions here and elsewhere with EOs that there is not “full and complete agreement” within the EO communion. Evidently, there is a hierarchy of teachings; not all teachings require full and complete agreement. And historically, in the first millenium, there were matters of divergence between East and West that were resolved without “full and complete agreement on [Eastern] terms”. Moreover, while in relatively recent times a neat theory of sacramental economy has been devised to rationalize past practice, the reality is that past practice - and even present practice has included intercommunion of members of churches formally in schism.

So the position, while it may be the true, is certainly out of synch with many historic and present realities. Perhaps there is room…

 

[dzheremi]

The key here, dvdjs, is “on Orthodox terms” (don’t know why you replaced it with “Eastern”, a meaningless term). The historical and contemporary exceptions we all know about don’t really change the terms for complete and open communion.

As far as there being a “hierarchy of teachings” with some not requiring full assent, I can’t really speak to that since I’m not EO, but even if that were the case, I have to wonder why that would matter. Is it not their right to determine what is necessary and what is not necessary for those who they will commune with? I would think it is.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Sounds reasonable, but…

It is crystal clear from discussions here and elsewhere with EOs that there is not “full and complete agreement” within the EO communion. Evidently, there is a hierarchy of teachings; not all teachings require full and complete agreement. And historically, in the first millenium, there were matters of divergence between East and West that were resolved without “full and complete agreement on [Eastern] terms”. Moreover, while in relatively recent times a neat theory of sacramental economy has been devised to rationalize past practice, the reality is that past practice - and even present practice has included intercommunion of members of churches formally in schism.

So the position, while it may be the true, is certainly out of synch with many historic and present realities. Perhaps there is room…

There is full and complete agreement on every important doctrinal issue within the Eastern Orthodox Church, just as their is agreement among Catholics on every essential aspect of Catholic doctrine. Where the Eastern Orthodox Church has not officially spoken there is room for disagreement within certain standards. For example one could not be a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theologian and deny the virgin birth of Christ. Within Eastern Orthodoxy we call the differing views of theologians on matters not officially defined as doctrine, the opinion of theoloians or “theologoumena.” In the case of my question to a Melkite about their view of the 1st Vatican Council is not in that category, because the Catholic Church has officially spoken on the authority of the pope at the 1st Vatican Council. From an Eastern Orthodox and I also think a Catholic point of view, this is not an incidental matter, but is rather important. Even if the International Orthodox Catholic Ecumenical Dialogue were to reach complete agreement on an interpretation of Vatican 1 that is acceptable to both sides, for it to be an official agreement, it would have to be accepted by both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. As I understand Catholic polity, the Pope has the authority to speak for all Catholics, but on such an important matter, I suspect that the Pope would consult the Cardinals or call some sort of council to consider the matter. It is more complex in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarch could not on his own authority accept the agreement in the name of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Such an agreement would require acceptance from a pan Orthodox council as well as ratification by the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I guess what I should have said is: if you say that “The same was done in Alexandria after the fallout over Chalcedon.” then you are conceding more than I would ever claim, because I don’t claim that we have the same kind of legitimacy as the OO Coptic patriarchate.

I was only speaking to the precedent of filling a Vacant See due to Schism/Heresy or whatever else. I certainly don’t want to try and untangle the mess that is the History of claimants to the See of Antioch

 

[frjohnmorris]

I was only speaking to the precedent of filling a Vacant See due to Schism/Heresy or whatever else. I certainly don’t want to try and untangle the mess that is the History of claimants to the See of Antioch

I am quite certain that if restoration of Communion would take place, there would be more than one Patriarch of Antioch, each representing their particular tradition. It would be even more difficult to combine the different Rites into one jurisdiction than to untangle the conflicting claim as to who is the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch or of Alexandria. I do not think that anyone can legitimately accuse the Catholic Church of being disorganized, and even the Catholic Church has 3 Patriarchs of Antioch (Maronite, Melkite and Syrian Catholic) and 2 Patriarchs of Alexandria (the Melkite Patriarch also has the title Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria and there is a Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria). No one believes that restoration of Communion would require any of the various Rites practiced by the Patriarchates of Antioch to abandon their ancient liturgical traditions. If the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox were to restore Communion there would be an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria as well as an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and a Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

Shouldn’t this also be a concern for the Knights of Columbus, that local councils are disregarding the rules regarding membership?

In the case I’m thinking of, yes, I notified the relevant KofC authorities. Individual was a member of the KofC before leaving communion with Rome for the local AO parish, in Alaska, this year. (Which means Fr. John can take it to his bishop if he wishes; I don’t have the standing to do so.) The individual was adamant his pastor at St. John’s was aware he is remaining a practicing member of the KofC. The individual informed me he’d already been chrismated by the AO.

When I was on the 1st Degree team, we turned away at least 3 Antiochian Orthodox from St. John’s, all of whom claimed to have their pastor’s permission. I can’t attest to the veracity of their claim, only that they made it. Those three, the Distict Deputy made the call, and the call was “no admittance.”

 

[frjohnmorris]

In the case I’m thinking of, yes, I notified the relevant KofC authorities. Individual was a member of the KofC before leaving communion with Rome for the local AO parish, in Alaska, this year. (Which means Fr. John can take it to his bishop if he wishes; I don’t have the standing to do so.) The individual was adamant his pastor at St. John’s was aware he is remaining a practicing member of the KofC. The individual informed me he’d already been chrismated by the AO.

When I was on the 1st Degree team, we turned away at least 3 Antiochian Orthodox from St. John’s, all of whom claimed to have their pastor’s permission. I can’t attest to the veracity of their claim, only that they made it. Those three, the Distict Deputy made the call, and the call was “no admittance.”

As I understand it one of the requirements for membership in the Knights of Columbus is that the applicant be a Roman Catholic. That would exclude a member of an Antiochian or any other Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

As I understand it one of the requirements for membership in the Knights of Columbus is that the applicant be a Roman Catholic. That would exclude a member of an Antiochian or any other Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

The exact wording is “A practical Catholic in communion with the Holy See.” Specifically allowing for the ECCs. Some councils are even entirely Eastern Catholic.

 

[Peter_J]

When I was on the 1st Degree team, we turned away at least 3 Antiochian Orthodox from St. John’s, all of whom claimed to have their pastor’s permission. I can’t attest to the veracity of their claim, only that they made it.

And, even if the pastors did give permission, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they were aware of the

“A practical Catholic in communion with the Holy See.”

rule.

 

[josie_L]

There is full and complete agreement on every important doctrinal issue within the Eastern Orthodox Church, just as their is agreement among Catholics on every essential aspect of Catholic doctrine.

There is disagreement upon whether or not Catholic sacraments are valid, moreover, the reception of Catholic converts into Orthodoxy is varied, i.e., some are baptized, some are not, some are chrismated, some are not . . etc. Why is it so varied and is this not considered important, i.e., according to this dialogue between EO and Catholics it seems to be important enough:

There have been two promising steps forward resulting from the North American Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogues:

the Eastern Orthodox signatories to a detailed study and “Consultation Statement” on the Filioque (October 25, 2003) are in agreement that the Filioque doctrine (i.e., the affirmation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [Filioque]) should no longer be stigmatized as “heretical”; and

as a result of the Agreed Statement on “Baptism and ‘Sacramental Economy’” issued by the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation (June 3, 1999), the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I has been formally asked to withdraw the 1755 [patriarchal] decree denying the validity of Catholic baptisms!

In that “Agreed Statement” the Orthodox signatories joined in clearly repudiating the influential teaching of the Athonite monk Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain whose work, the Pedalion (1783), had reinforced the erroneous doctrine that had spread among many Orthodox that Catholic baptisms were invalid. As the “Agreed Statement” observed:

“In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the recognition of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism. Nevertheless, these rulings left rebaptism as an option subject to ‘pastoral discretion’. In any case, by the late nineteenth century a comprehensive new sacramental theology had appeared in Greek-speaking Orthodoxy which provided a precise rationale for such pastoral discretion; for the source of this new rationale, we must examine the influential figure of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (1748-1809).

The Orthodox world owes an immense debt to this Athonite monk, who edited and published the Philokalia (1783), as well as numerous other works of a patristic, pastoral and liturgical nature. In the Pedalion (1800), his enormously influential edition of -and commentary on- canonical texts. Nicodemus gave form and substance to the requirement of rebaptism decreed by Cyril V. Thoroughly in sympathy with the decree of 1755, and moved by his attachment to a perceived golden age in the patristic past, he underscored the antiquity and hence priority of the African Councils and Apostolic Canons, and argued strenuously, in fact, for the first-century provenance of the latter. Nicodemus held up these documents, with their exclusivist ecclesiology, as the universal voice of the ancient Church. In so doing, he systematically reversed what had been the normative practice of the Eastern Church since at least the 4th century… [As a result of Nicodemus’ understanding of ‘sacramental economy’], much of Greek-speaking Orthodoxy [has justified] the rebaptism of Western Christians, or for their reception by chrismation or profession of faith, without in either case attributing to their baptism any reality in its own right”.

Those Orthodox who have denied the validity of baptism in non-Orthodox Churches (whose sacraments outside Eastern Orthodoxy are regarded as devoid of grace) are sharply taken to task in the “Agreed Statement”:

“The Nicodemean interpretation is still promoted in important theological and monastic circles. Although these voices in the Orthodox world are significant ones, we do not believe that they represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church on the subject of baptism… It is rather an eighteenth century innovation motivated by the particular historical circumstances operative in those times. It is not the teaching of Scripture, of most of the Fathers, or of later Byzantine canonists, nor is it the majority position of the Orthodox churches today”.

Regardless of the above “Agreed Statement” acknowledging the validity of Catholic baptisms (which Catholics can only welcome), the fact remains that significant numbers of Eastern Orthodox, including the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) and those of the “uncanonical” Old Calendarist Churches in Greece, Bulgaria, and Rumania are at odds with the official Orthodox establishments in their countries. Numbering millions, they adhere strictly to the Nicodemean understanding of the sacraments as exclusively “orthodox”. The “Agreed Statement” fails to mention that such “Orthodox” groups (adhering to an heretical Donatist view of the sacraments) not only reject the validity of Catholic baptisms but also the other sacraments of the Catholic Church!

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/dialogue.htm

 

[frjohnmorris]

There is disagreement upon whether or not Catholic sacraments are valid, moreover, the reception of Catholic converts into Orthodoxy is varied, i.e., some are baptized, some are not, some are chrismated, some are not . . etc. Why is it so varied and is this not considered important, i.e., according to this dialogue between EO and Catholics it seems to be important enough:

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/dialogue.htm

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

 

[Cavaradossi]

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/dialogue.htm

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).

 

[frjohnmorris]

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).

One needs to remember that the reports of ecumenical dialogues as well as their “Agreed Statements” are merely committee reports have no authority until they are officially approved by the Church. Therefore these reports and “Agreed Statements” fall within the category of theologoumena. It is clear that the Eastern Orthodox Church has received converts baptized with water “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit” by Chrismation for centuries, as can be seen by Canon 95 of Trullo in 692, which even allowed converts from Arianism which denied the divinity of Christ to be received by Chrismation. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church has never officially accepted a specific theological explanation of its practice. The most common theological explanation is that the reception of a convert through Chrismation is an act of economy through which something that is lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected by the grace of Chrismation. Although one finds evidence of this view going all the way back to St. Basil the Great, this view was most clearly articulated by St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain to explain how the Church of Constantinople could follow the Oros of Cyril VI of 1755 that mandated that all converts must be received by Baptism, but also accept as Orthodox those received by the Russian Church through Chrismation. The other view reflected in the Agreed Statement is that even economy cannot make something valid that is invalid. Therefore Baptism outside of the Church if not invalid. This view can be traced back at least to the Confession of Dositheus of 1672 which called Protestant Baptisms “valid.”
There is an explanation of the “filioque” which is acceptable to Eastern Orthodox theology which is that the “filioque” is equivalent to the Eastern patristric expression, “through the Son.” It has to do with the difference between the word “ἐκπορευόμενον” used in the original Greek text of the Creed which means to proceed from one source and the word “procedit” used in the Latin translation which can mean to proceed through a mediator and would accommodate “filioque” “and the Son” as meaning “through the Son.” Even the Catholic Church recognizes that it would be theologically unsound to use “and the Son” with the Greek word “ἐκπορευόμενον.”

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Maybe Mr. Likoudis should learn some Orthodox theology before presuming to speak for the Eastern Slavs,

James Likoudis? He comes up every so often … I guess we were due.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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 precisely how the principle of oikonomia works. It, despite the above characterization, is never neat, because the economy of salvation is comparatively messy.

 

[dvdjs]

That is precisely how the principle of oikonomia works. It, despite the above characterization, is never neat, because the economy of salvation is comparatively messy.

Probably not. Some accommodations might be economy. But when it is the normal way of doing things, it is no longer really economy just standard practice.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Probably not. Some accommodations might be economy. But when it is the normal way of doing things, it is no longer really economy just standard practice.

Not necessarily. Akrevia is still applied in some cases. I was baptized a Latin, but when I converted to Orthodoxy I was baptized and chrismated. It was a Greek Church that is canonical.

Granted this was outside of North America…North America is only a small sliver of the Church, and just because many there may apply Economy en masse doesn’t mean the rest of the Orthodox world does.

 

[dvdjs]

Not necessarily. Akrevia is still applied in some cases. I was baptized a Latin, but when I converted to Orthodoxy I was baptized and chrismated. It was a Greek Church that is canonical.

Granted this was outside of North America…North America is only a small sliver of the Church, and just because many there may apply Economy en masse doesn’t mean the rest of the Orthodox world does.

Sorry, by “normal” I meant:“usual or ordinary : not strange”; I mentioned that in the overwhelming majority of cases, no baptism etc. But did not suggest that it was the procedures used in every case.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Not necessarily. Akrevia is still applied in some cases. I was baptized a Latin, but when I converted to Orthodoxy I was baptized and chrismated. It was a Greek Church that is canonical.

Granted this was outside of North America…North America is only a small sliver of the Church, and just because many there may apply Economy en masse doesn’t mean the rest of the Orthodox world does.

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