www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Baptizing Catholics and Vice Versa

I get that but doesn't he hold some weight with Orthodox?

He did by default when Constantinople was the capital of the eastern (the last remaining part, until 1453) Roman Empire. The word 'ecumenical' in 'ecumenical patriarch' really means 'imperial', the ecumene (oikoumene) meaning the then-known world (all of which the empire theoretically claimed?).

I think because of misunderstanding what that meant historically and because of Western society, even in its ex-Christian mode, thinking in Pope-like terms, he's often misreported as the Orthodox Pope ('the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians', blah blah). You know, like the Archbishop of Canterbury is the Episcopalians' Pope and Hanukkah is Jewish Christmas (how many of you as kids in school got that idea from the well-meant equal time given to that minor holiday in December?).

And a bit like France remembering it was a world power and having an attitude, I think the patriarch doesn't knock himself out trying to disabuse people of that.

Being in communion with him doesn't define being Orthodox like being in communion with the Pope defines being Roman or Eastern Catholic or being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury defines being Anglican.

Being in the Orthodox communion, which happens to include that patriarch, defines being Orthodox.

I do believe there are exceptions, in the GOA in particular in monasteries. I had been baptized by pouring previously, but was received in the AOA by triple immersion baptism and chrismation after relating this to my priest who then consulted with the bishop.

It is up to the individual bishop in regards to each individual circumstance. Some can be received through economia. Not so for others. Irregardless of whether through economia by a valid bishop or through triple immersion, both are valid.

Alexandr

Dear Alexandr,

We seem to have moved suddenly from Baptism to ordinations. The progression is logical, if a trifle hasty.

If it would be of any help, I could easily translate the rubrics for the reception of a Roman Catholic priest into the Russian Orthodox Church (they are found in the standard manuals of Orthodox practiced approved by the Russian Synodal Church before the Revolution, and are still in use today).

I could also easily cite numerous examples of various Orthodox jurisdictions, in the USA and elsewhere, receiving Roman Catholic priests (and in at least one case, a Roman Catholic deacon) without requiring any semblance of a new ordination.

At the risk of raising a wound of several decades ago, when Greek-Catholic clergy were dragooned into the Russian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church in the wake of the Soviet take-over of Eastern Europe after World War II, there was no hint of any requirement for fresh ordinations.

And so on. However, there is sometimes an exception (there is always sometimes an exception);

It occasionally happens that Father Thus-and-So finds himself irresistibly drawn to Orthodoxy in conjunction with a newly-discerned vocation to Holy Matrimony. Since Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) forbids marriage after ordination, this is an obvious problem. I am aware of a few attempts to "solve" this problem by "receiving the convert as a layman", solemnizing the marriage, and then either "restoring" him to the priesthood or even performing a new ordination.

It might be preferable in such a case simply to provide a document to the effect that since Father Thus-and-So had been deprived of the opportunity to marry prior to ordination, he was permitted to do so now and might then be blessed to function as an Orthodox priest if the relevant Hierarch wanted him to do so.

As a by-way of the matter of the reception of Roman Catholic clergy into Orthodoxy, I have encountered not a few converts from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy who deeply resent the Orthodox policy of receiving Roman Catholic clergy in their orders, while refusing to do the same for Anglican clergy. But that is how it is; please do not blame me - I am not Matthew Parker.

There are, certainly, some Orthodox jurisdictions which re-ordain Roman Catholic clergy, even as there are certainly some Orthodox jurisdictions which re-baptize Roman Catholic laymen. But in both cases they are a minority.

One is occasionally "assured" by Anglicans that Orthodoxy recognizes Anglican Orders. But running these reports to earth always results in a rather different situation.

Fr. Serge

Thank you for your responses to our posters, Father Serge. I appreciate them...

In Christ,
Alice

Father, bless.

Yes, well done.

I've heard of those 'marriage conversions' too (besides some Orthodox and the vagante world the Polish National Catholic Church, an American denomination that's now essentially a Novus Ordo clone, seems to be a beneficiary of that with a number of ex-Roman clergy alongside their ones who are born members including from generational clergy families); usually the priest is not reordained by the Orthodox.

I know of one case of a Ukrainian Catholic priest (met him; nice man) who did that, went to the South Bound Brook Ukrainians when they were still uncanonical under Mstislav and was grandfathered in when they were regularised, going under Constantinople, and 'he didn't have the opportunity to marry' was essentially the argument for economy; certainly within the bishop's authority!



Oh, yes. What some Orthodox (including the late founding first hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Anthony - tsarist Russians had nothing to prove unlike many converts and so weren't particularly nasty to other Christians, which also explains functional recognition of RC orders) meant by that was IF the whole Anglican Communion unprotestantised (and anybody who's run across English or Australian Low Churchmen wonders about the likelihood of that even if there were no Carter Heyward, John Spong or Gene Robinson) AND converted en masse to Orthodoxy THEN they'd (now, the remaining male clergy as orthodoxifying would rule out women clergy except maybe deacons) be received in their orders.

As obviously that hasn't happened ex-Anglican clergy are reordained outright.

So it's not like Rome's argument regarding Matthew Parker, that Protestant intent wiped out valid orders in his church. The Orthodox say the Anglican ordinal is a valid form; the big issue is, juridically and (like Rome's objection) theologically, Anglicans are outside Orthodoxy.

In principle the Orthodox never recognise non-Orthodox orders as they are, like Rome recognises the East's and Catholic and classic Anglicans both Rome's and the East's. (Other Anglicans are now in full communion with some non-episcopal Lutherans and Methodists so the question's moot.)

What everyone seems to be missing, is, by citing examples of recognition of various Sacraments of the heterodox by the Orthodox Church, one is witnessing examples of economia. In simple terms, the primacy of Orthodoxy, as the very Church of Christ, and the existence of valid Mysteries ONLY within Her confines (notwithstanding intellectual speculation about the "wider boundaries" of the Church, and this even by pious Churchmen) are not things which are subject to debate or restatement. This is because they are not ideas, but are spiritual facts that have been revealed to us. The nature of the Church, Christ as Her sole Head and the source of Her unity, and the spiritual vision of the clergy (Bishops and Presbyters) also fall into the category of these universal spiritual Truths. These immutable Truths are the pillars of our Faith. Such things as Church administration and clerical rank, as well as the treatment of those who have fallen from the Church or who are separated from her, these are pastoral matters. They are affected by time and circumstance. Thus, we apply the dogmatic words of the Fathers universally. There can never be a Pope in Orthodoxy. The Church has no Head except Christ. There is no salvation outside Orthodoxy. The Mysteries of the Church are single and unique. We can, however, at the same time, admit that Church administration, the pastoral treatment of those outside the Church, the reception of converts, and so on, are subject to circumstance, history, and the needs of human beings in specific instances. We can even speculate about the boundaries of the Church (if soberly so), if we do not, at the same time, violate the dogmatic definition of the Church. And if we come to contradictions in doing this, we must always yield to the primacy of the Church and admit the inadequacy of theory or practice derived from the temporary phenomenon of given instances of dispensation (that is, the application of economia).

Hope that is a bit more understandable.

Alexandr

I don't see what having a Pope (or two, let's not forget H.H. Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and All Africa) here in this life has to do with diminishing Christ's sole Headship. Of course the Pope is part of Church administration and his duty will cease simultaneously, just as all other bishops and clerical ranks disappear, when Christ returns in Glory!
This doesn't take away from Christ's sole Headship anymore than any other Patriarch, bishop, parish priest, deacon, layman, woman or child does. Neither do the intercession of the Theotokos or the Saints and Angels take away from Christ's sole Mediation and Redemption.

Another question. If the Catholics aren't baptized and our priests are really priests than are we really married?

I knew someone would use the word which covers anything and everything and nothing, all at the same time: "economia".

"There is no salvation outside Orthodoxy." Interesting. Shall we discuss Saint Isaac the Syrian, Saint Constantine the Great, or just Saints Barlaam and Joasaph?

Or shall we simply amuse ourselves by noting Saints who whilst in this world were not in Communion with each other?

Fr. Serge

However pious that sounds, the notion of "Tonsure as effective as form of baptism" is MOST peculiar.

I would like some of our theological heavyweights to weigh in on that one.

This was, as I recall the praxis here in America among certain jurisdictions...

The joke in the seminary was "If celibacy doesn't work out, we will honeymoon in Johnstown!"

It is tricky.

Bless, Father Archimandrite!

Yes indeed and it was you who, long ago, twigged my interest in such fascinating topics!

Fr. Holweck's book "Dictionary of Saints" has a myriad number of such individuals who were not in communion with one another in life but now decorate Orthodox (and Catholic) calendars.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Your humble servant,

Alex

The think the real problem in this situation is not the Orthodox response.