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

I just noticed this from the first page

Closed communion heretical? Do people seriously believe that?

Andrew

Probably not, Andrew. You will notice that the segment of the first post that you quote refers to "these practices"; the full post in fact contains a list of several practices. Which ones of these were called heretical is not competely clear from the post.

Bishop Tikhon of OCA Diocese of the West once remarked that if one assembled records of all of ht eacts of Orhtodox hierarchs over time, removed all obvious error, and tried from the rest to reconstruct the canons, one would be faced with a task doomed to failure. And I think the reverse is true: one cannot from canons, and decrees of bishops, synods, and partiarchs, discern the common practice of the Orthodox church.

ISTM that the authors of the artcles linked to by Anastasios focused too much on the various writings and rulings on the manner of reception - all of those definite teachings. If one wanted, instead, to research the manner of reception per se, one should approach the task by gathering all available data from church records on actual receptions. One could then mine this data to discern what are the various manners of reception, how frequently each has been used, then further analyze how these various manners are correlated with place, time, political events, etc.

There is a real difference between the two approaches which focus alterantively on decrees versus practice. This difference makes me wonder about how Orthodox think about Orthodoxy. Is Orthodoxy what Orthodox do, or is the accumulated canons, decrees - the law? I would have thought the latter too much a legalistic view to be orthodox. But do I understand that the former, being just "precedent" has no significance? Is that latter view perhaps peculiar to internet and to more-orthodox-than-thou Orthodoxy, or is it fundamental to Orthodoxy as its guarantee for orthodoxy? Or is there a just some better way altogether to view this seeming dilemma?

I�m not seeming to see the dilemma. The canons are the guideposts of the church. It is not the letter on the page that gives the canons authority, it is the church applying them. Just as Holy Scripture itself must be seen, understood and interpreted through the tradition of the church to make sense and to carry true authority.

The church in this instance has done as it has needed, either by applying strictness to the canons or relaxing them. That is really all that is happening here, the underlying principle as has been stated is the same. It has been shown in this thread that reception of converts in Catholicism has itself varied over time due to different circumstances.

I�m also curious what it is that the priest quoted in this thread exactly finds �heretical�.

Andrew

Andrew, I understand, more or less, the way of Orthodox thinking about law, but am honestly just wondering about Orthodox scholarship. At first I thought it obvious that if one was discussing the manner of Orthodox reception of Catholicsm then one would focus on the actual practice of the church in framing the answer. I therefore find it strange that these scholarly treatments focus far more on decrees than on actual practice. It makes we wonder if this way of thinking about a problem reprsents some fundamental manner of Orthodox scholarship, or is it just a current of some sort of scholasticism within Orthodoxy.

djs,

I doubt these people are scholastics, if so I think their goal would be to show the apparent contradictions don�t really exist or have some kind of logical interconnect. I think it�s obvious the variance in practice often does not make any sense. If you really wanted to call them bad names you could say they�re acting like canonists. It does seem to me however the shared statement posted by the Administrator is similar in form and content, so it must not just be an Orthodox problem.

Ultimately I would assume what the purpose is behind all of this is to find a way to explain how converts are received. I think �convert� in the context it is being used is a category distinct from people who have changed confessional alliance to due statecraft, presumably against their will. It would not for instance to me make sense to answer the question �How would a Protestant be received in France� with a lengthy treatment of the Dragonnades.

Andrew

[I'm also still curious as to which practices are "heretical".]

Andrew, I was careful to nuance "scholastic"; I don't use the word in the well-known RC sense, but in a more general sense of isolation within one's field that gets one uncoupled from reality. Cokie Roberts this morning on NPR was discussing the great significance of Rove's recent talk at some Republican event. The criterion of significance? Not import to the nation or interest of its citizenry, rather the buzz among her colleagues in the Washington punditry.

My question, btw, was this: is this approach typical; is it fundamental in a way that I don't get but would like to understand; is it just ivory tower stuff that is atypical and/or of no fundamental importance? You mention for reasons that are unclear to me that it is not just an Orthodox problem. But the fact that there are very "academic" traditions within the RCC is hardly unfamiliar, and in no way helps to answer the questions I posed.

As to your question: only JR, among the posters here, is in a position to specify what the priest said. So I presume that you are addressing him.

Sounds like a good description of the risks of academic theology and participation in ecumenical dialogs to me. How much does all of this filter down to the nuts and bolts of everyday faith and applied spirituality? Precious little I would think.

Also, my query as to which practices are heretical was thrown out to the wider audience.

Andrew

Dear Friends,

What a fascinating and challenging thread!

With respect to the issue of "recognition of the validity of RC baptism," perhaps some of us are barking up the wrong tree when we frame the question itself from what could be deemed to be an "RC perspective."

An RC perspective would see the validity of any sacrament outside the RC Church as having been achieved through the fulfillment of certain actions by a minister standing in the Apostolic Succession.

From an Orthodox (and formerly RC) perspective, "sacramental validity" outside the Church is already a non-starter.

Such validity must always be related to full communion with the Church, in this case, the Church as defined as being the Orthodox Catholic Church. It is that same communion that "energizes" and maintains sacramental life.

Therefore, Assyrians/Nestorians who returned to the Church after abjuring the heresy of two "prosopa" or persons in Christ were treated, to use a phrase, "with kit gloves" with respect to the validity of their Baptism etc.

If I, as a Ukrainian Catholic, wished to become Ukrainian Orthodox, the only thing I need do is to attend Confession, recite the Creed without the Filioque (which I already do! ), and promise my adherence to the Orthodox Church only - and I would be validly received into the UOC of Canada.

Again, the Orthodox Catholic Church, upon receiving someone into its Communion, would not be deciding on the sacramental validity of anything - it would simply be "energizing," via that Communion, the sacramental life of the new Orthodox Christian variously - either, by her own decision, affirming that her new member, by virtue of living in the fullness of Communion with her, has the fullness of Baptismal Grace or by deciding that the new candidate would have to receive Baptismal and Pentecostal Grace through direct participation in the Mysteries since the Church decided that full Communion with it required its reception.

So I understand the position of the Orthodox Church as being one direct more by pastoral concerns that is primarily concerned with the status of a Christian once he or she decides to enter into full communion with her. Pastoral perspectives are notorious for resisting "one size fits all" conclusions in this respect.

This is why there is no one answer on the question as we've framed it here on "sacramental validity."

It is ultimately a question that is foreign to Orthodox sacramental praxis as it appears to posit "validity" apart from communion with the Body of Christ that is the Church.

Frankly, I think the Catholic Church should return/accept the Orthodox view on validity.

The notions of the (sacramental) glass being half-full etc. are ultimately academic and lead to no satisfactory conclusion outside of communion with the Church.

Alex

Andrew,

Sorry if I was unclear. You are correct that there is a definitive teaching on what baptism is. But that�s not what I�m referring to. That there are several continuing varying methods of receiving converts from Catholicism (which are all subject to the discretion of the local bishop) indicates (at least to me) that there is no single definitive teaching on how Orthodoxy receives converts from Catholicism. Economy is usually allowed where there is no definitive teaching regarding process.

On the flip side, Catholicism has spoken pretty definitively that Catholicism and Orthodoxy believe the same thing about the Trinity (at least in essentials). So there is no question of re-baptism. It�s prohibited. Catholicism, however, is still not definitive about the method of accepting converts from Orthodoxy. It probably ranges from a simple statement of intent to a profession of faith. It is a bit blurry because it is very possible for Orthodox to simply register and take communion while technically remaining Orthodox (at least from the Catholic viewpoint). Orthodox are not supposed to be received like Protestants because Catholicism recognizes the validity of Orthodox Sacraments. The Catholic Church treats other groups (like Mormons) as non-Christians and requires baptism because they have a different belief about God.

But maybe I missed something else in your post?

Admin

I think you have a point here in differentiating academic theology versus grass-roots theology and, for that matter, academic ecumenism. What is the role of the academy in Orthodoxy? What is the origin and development of that role?

I am not qualified to comment on heresies in this thread.

Alex,

Nicely stated!

The larger question, then, is �Who is a member of the Orthodox Church?� I don�t think that the East would look at this question asked this way (and, yes, it�s a very Roman way to phrase it), but I think the determination of the method of reception (economy) is based upon it.

Admin

Indeed, as was mentioned in the Archimandrite Ambrosius article, the idea, during the period of extensive reception of Uniates, was that they have "always been in communion with [Orthodoxy]". [/QUOTE]

Administrator

Here again, I must state I don�t see it that way. There is at least one official stated policy (the Synod of Constantinople) in addition to the more broadly based underlying ecclesiological principle regarding the sacraments. Economy in my understanding, as in this instance, is not about the lack of a teaching but the manner in which that that teaching is applied (ekonomia vs. akribia).

Andrew

Dear Administrator,

Thank you, as always, for the compliment of your agreeing with me!

Alex