www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox Re-baptism?

Sure, as long as we can agree the forced conversions were the same for groups such as the Lemkos who found themselves on the wrong side of the political divide, or for Serbian Orthodox forcibly converted by the Ustashe during WWII.

Andrew

What is the context, Andrew? :rolleyes:
My comment was not just a matter of hauling out grievances out of context; it, unlike your comment, is precisely on the topic of "Orthodox Re-baptism".

I am stunned by discussions of "norms" and "prevailing customs" of Orthodox reception of Catholics, that simply ignore the manner of reception of perhaps 10 million Catholics in the last couple of centuries. Especially on the Byzantine Forum. I don't doubt that this silence is not a matter of sinister denial, but I'd like to understand why this history - history of people who are in this forum - is just disregarded as though it - and by extension we - are of absolutely no significance.

Dear, in Christ,

A glance at some of the Orthodox discussion lists, will teach us that this topic is potentially controversial.

I think the title given to the original posting is deliberately shocking. No Church, Catholic or Orthodox tolerates "re-baptism". There is no such thing.

The question is the recognition of the validity of baptism in other Churches. It is a very complex theological question, and does not give itself quickly to conclusions, or simple answers.

Before Catholics are too bold in criticizing the policy of some Orthodox Churches on this topic, or before we consider ourselves too enlightened or superior, it might be good to remember that it was common practice to conditionally re-baptize Orthodox converts to Catholicism until the ecumenical thaw after the Council.

The recognition of the validity of baptism of different Churches has been a difficult question since the earliest days of the Church, witness the many rulings (not always consistent) on this question.

It is not likely to be settled on our Forum either! Let's not use this topic as an occasion to enter into a dispute we are not likely to solve, but that might tempt us to a lack of charity and humility.

the unworthy,
Elias

djs

Your comment, like an earlier one appeared to me to be the interjection of a grievance that is unrelated to the topic. My answer was to show there are faults on both sides.

The topic seems to me to be about why current practices are like they are in terms of receiving converts. We�ve tried to explain why things work like they do. I guess if talking about the bad things that have happened between the two churches throughout history make sense to discuss here, then they do. I guess it will be appropriate for me then if I see a thread about how converts are received in to Catholicism to bring up various examples of past abusive practices in how that church has received or coerced in to its body. It just so happens that I would not do that.

Andrew

Andrew,

The fundamental question, as with anything, is "What constitutes the Church?" If one sees the Catholic Church according to the Ignatian formula, it is a bishop with apostolic succession surrounded by the clergy and the faithful in celebration of the Eucharist. Of course, such a Eucharistic community does not exclude communion with other bishops/churches - in fact its very definition as catholic implies a systemic unity of teaching (in "agreement with the Eucharist") and life willed by Christ that is universal in the scope - for the salvation of the nations "grafted in" to the vine of Israel. To the extent that a church and its bishop maintain visible unity with the rest of the bishops in the communion of the Church, it manifests a critical aspect of its catholicity. Since earliest times, such manifestations of catholicity also had a Petrine dimesion/reference to them, centered in the "matrix" or "womb" (as St. Cyril puts it) of the Church of Rome and her patriarch. (Is it any wonder that the five sees of the Pentarchy all had ties to Peter? Peter and paul in Rome, Andrew in Constantinople, Mark, Peter's disciple in Alexandria, Antioch, Peter's first See, and Jerusalem, where Peter preached at Pentecost in the name of the whole church.) To the extent that unity between the churches is crippled by strife and division, the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity is impeded - crippled, but not annihilated.

To say that the Catholic Church of Rome and those in communion with her are "outside of the church" is absurd on its face. By what authority is such a claim made? Anastasios has cited well attended local councils of Orthodox hierarchs as official teaching and "binding" in the manner of an ecumenical council. This contradicts everything that I have been told for years by the Orthodox that an ecumenical council alone is binding and infallible. Historically speaking, local councils have disagreed with one another - even excommunicating Church Fathers (ala St. Athanasius).

So by what authority would such claims be made? What ecumenical council has ever stated definitively that some of the doctrinal assertions of Rome are heretical? What ecumenical council has ever stated definitively that her baptisms are "invalid"? What ecumenical council has ever dared to assert that the Church of Rome is not "in the church"? I challenge anyone to cite one.

Anastasios,

You go on to assert that the fundamental issue between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church is the dogma of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. I think that this has perhaps become a symbol of the division between our two churches, but not it is certainly not the sourse. These were not defined as dogmas until 1870 and the schism between our two churches had existed for many centuries prior to Vatican I. IMHO, the tragic divisions between us do not hinge on a single point of doctrine, but rather are the result of a myriad of misunderstandings and historical wrongdoings on the part of both parties. (I would include in that papal strongarming tactics and intrusion.) Both churches have exsited along differing historical trajectories that resulted in developments in expressions of doctrine that appear strange or foreign to the other. (Of course, the fact that Muslims controlled the appointment of EP's for centuries certainly did not help. Can anyone imagine that they would want a pro-union Patriarch to restore unity with the West? Given the behavior of some of the crusaders, no doubt many of the faithful of Constantinople would not be sympathetic to such a position!)

Your point about reception of councils as a testament to its ecumenicity is well taken. My only question is: what are we to say then of the Oriental Orthodox? If we followed your definition of ecumenical, then we would all be Monophosites celebrating 4 ecumenical councils instead of 7 in our Diviine Liturgy. Reception by all has limited value as a criterion for authoritative ecumenicity. Ultimately, when all is said and done, there needs to be a final arbiter of orthodoxy. If not Rome, then where? If not it's bishop/patriarch, than who?

The Catholic Church learned its doctrine of magisterium and magisterial unity from the Orthodox East. My hope is that one day it will restore its magisterim that speaks with "one voice" and, with the whole Catholic Church, join in a "chorus" of praise as a witness to the whole world to the Gospel.

I'm not just waxing sentimental about our past unity. I think it is a prophetic vocation from Christ for all time.

Gordo

Andrew,

It amazes me that you could consider what may be the most common manner of reception of Catholics into Orthodoxy as being unrelated to the topic of reception of Catholics into Orthodoxy. How on earth could this be unrelated? Just as it amazes me that the issues would be discussed, here of all places, as though this common manner of reception does not merit notice.

Well stated. If one looks at the numbers of Catholics received into Orthodoxy simply by changing the name of the bishop that was prayed for one can see that re-baptism will long remain the exception. Yes, Orthodoxy does teach that its sacraments alone are grace-filled. But the fact that there has been an ongoing (even if severely limited) level of intercommunion for the past millennium demonstrates that Orthodoxy has not yet come to a definitive teaching on this (who is Orthodox enough not to be re-baptized).

It is not a given that the concept of precedence does not exist in the Orthodox canonical tradition. The understating of precedence is treated differently, but it is not nonexistent.

For a good read see:
BAPTISM AND "SACRAMENTAL ECONO...nary, Crestwood, New York - June 3, 1999

Father Elias,

I was not aware of this practice. Thank you for pointing out that we have not always manifested respect for the catholicity of all Orthodox sacraments. One should not always cast stones in glass houses, no?

Gordo

No, we can't, because that is not the norm or the prevailing custom in the four eastern patriarchates, but only in the Church of Russia. Russia may be the largest Orthodox Church numerically speaking but it is still only one local church among many.

Anastasios

Ah, apparently we don't agree on the meaning of "prevailing custom".

Again, I would recommend that people read the scholarly sources I quoted above before engaging in such discussions because it will save a lot of time. For istance, in that article, the 10 million received by a dyptych switch is mentioned and not "glossed over."

Anastasios

Apparently not. It seems to me that one custom does not prevail over the other as both are still in use and one is not the majority practice over another. For instance, in 1970 the ROCOR adopted the Greek practice and in the 1950's the Greeks in America adopted the Russian. So which practice is the prevailing custom? Just by numerical superiority alone?

A.

OK, so you base your argument on numbers from the 1800's in one geographical area of one patriarchate.

Rebaptism is the prereogative of the local bishop. No one outside of Orthodox communion holding to unOrthodox beliefs is Orthodox. All could be baptized on conversion. All are not out of a pastoral consideration (ie. the ten million or however many Eastern Catholics that were brought over by a dyptych switch were not entirely aware of a schism at all meaning that they were received economically to facilitate conversion)--but there was no doubt on the Orthodox side that they were not Orthodox. Look at the documents about when the pilgrims visited the Kiev Caves Lavra. The Byzantine Catholics were given communion IF they promised to NEVER commune in the Byzantine Catholic Church again.

Well, the scholars of the Eastern Orthodox tradition that I studied under and read say otherwise, unless we are misreading what each other means by precedence. Would you care to elaborate what you mean?

That is an interesting article, pushed forward by the theologians I mentioned in my previous post vaguely. It has no official standing in the Orthodox Church. Some certainly want to see it adopted as the standard but I don't see that happening. Look at who signed the document and it will give one an idea of whose ideas these are and how limited they are in the Orthodox world.

Anastasios

Yes, "prevailing" means most frequent or common. Of course, when you switch to "prevail" that admits different meanings, like "triumph", which of course is more than a matter of frequency.

Ok, if by numbers of people, I will agree reception by chrismation is the prevailing custom then.

If we are talking about patriarchates, I will say that there is no prevailing custom due to there being no clear majority between confession, chrismation, or baptism.

Anastasios