www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism

My bewilderment too!

Marduk writes on CAF as a member of the sui juris Coptic Catholic Church.

He may have left Catholicism and returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church?

The ancient tradition is embodied in our Service books. Lex orandi, lex credendi. For example see this English translation of the Russian Service Book for receiving Roman Catholics and Lutherans by Chrismation.

The idea of Chrismation as a mere "anointing" for conversion is something innovative (and therefore already dead in the water) has been proposed by the American Catholic-Orthodox Seminar but it has been laughed out of court by the Orthodox bishops. "When is a Chrismation not a Chrismation?"


Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic (Greco-Russian) Church
By Orthodox Eastern Church, Isabel Florence Hapgood

Compiled by Isabel Florence Hapgood
Published by Houghton, Mifflin and company, 1906
Original from the University of Wisconsin - Madison
Digitized Mar 13, 2008
615 pages

15.8 M

http://books.google.com/books?id=bHpbAAAAMAAJ&pgis=1

Before proceeding further then, since you have characterized him and his response, I would ask that the actual facts be ascertained, and I would think it is incumbent upon you to do so.

While some are laughing, others are not, and doing otherwise; hence my point on diversity of practice (as lex orandi) but more so the understanding of the underlying theology and implications for the faith.

Dear Father Deacon,

Yes, there is diversity. It is caused by the use of the principle of economia. While this is internally consistent, outsiders do not always grasp how it works and they will ask, "Why did you receive this person by Chrismation and this one by Baptism? Their situations look identical."

All Orthodox Churches will baptize Roman Catholics, some of them frequently, others less frequently.

Take the case of the French Cistercian patristic scholar Dom Placide Deseille. When he and 6 or 7 other Cistercian monks converted to Orthodoxy in the 1970s, they went to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. They were received by Baptism by a bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Then, for those who had been in RC Orders, this was followed by Ordination .

This caused such an uproar in the Catholic world of France that the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris issued instructions that Catholics were not to visit the small monasteries which these former Cistercians established in France.

I have chosen this example, from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, because Constantinople is considered the most ecumenical of all the Orthodox Churches yet they will re-baptize and re-ordain Roman Catholics. It is not a symptom of some fundamentalist mindset. When I was a young monk in Serbia all converts were received by Baptism.

Here is one of the French monasteries built by these Orthodox monks, in this case, by Fr Placide in the Rhone valley and dedicated to Saint Anthony the Great.

http://www.pagesorthodoxes.net/ressources/images/stantoine-eglise.jpg

Well, the facts are that Marduk has self-described himself in his Profile as Coptic Orthodox, as we have both seen. This is sufficient certainty for me. He is Coptic Orthodox.

I have known him for the last three years on CAF only as a member of the Catholic Church. Things have changed.

I understand the intent and purpose of the explanation but not the ramifications.

Prior to their reception:

Were the monks baptized Christians; could it be said of them that they had "put on Christ"?

There is no mention of chrismation; why?

Those in RC orders: What were they doing as priests when celebrating Mass and administering the other sacraments?

No, dear Father. The fact of the matter is that many, if not all, of the Joint Statements put out by this American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue are left to gather dust on the shelf by by the Orthodox Patriarchates.

For example, here is their 1999 Statement on "Baptism and "Sacramental Economy"

http://www.usccb.org/seia/agreed.shtml


An Agreed Statement
of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York
June 3, 1999

The document appeals to the Orthodox Churches to recognise Catholic Baptism. It appeals in particular to the Patriarchate of Constantinople to annul its canon law requiring the rebaptism of Catholics. But in the past 9 years no Orthodox Church has responded to this document.

I believe that the Orthodox Church will not depart from its age-old Cyprianic approach to the Sacraments and while the use of economia is seen to a great extent in the West and it allows compassion to work for the salvation of souls, there will be no tinkering with our actual theology. To do so creates a real danger of provoking schism amonmg the Orthodox.

This is not a question the Orthodox would dwell on very much. The intent is to bring them into the grace of the Church rather than fuss about their previous religious status.

Baptism is always followed by Chrismation in the East. They form one inseparable ceremony of Christian initiation. If a person is baptized one may take it for granted they were chrismated in the same ceremony.

Again, this is something the Orthodox would not muse upon. The intent was to make them grace-filled Orthodox priests.

Bless, Father Hieromonk!

Thank you for such informative posts which bring great (and much needed, for me at least) clarification to these important points!

What is to be truly admired is how Orthodox theology links the sacramental mysteries to the life of the Church herself as being ultimately necessary for their "efficacy" (sorry!)

When I was reading your words, the image of a fountain with seven strems flowing out of them came to mind where the Church is the fountain and the sacramental Mysteries are the streams that come from it and depend on it for their fluidity.

Would this be a legitimate image, Father?

We once had four freed Russian military prisoners here at the legislature who were accompanied by a Russian Orthodox priest. They had become Muslims while in captivity but now asked to be received back into Orthodoxy - by Chrismation which is the first time I came across this matter of the repeatability of Chrismation.

Your writing brings much clarity to the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, Father, which is needed in any forum where we Eastern Catholics are tempted to "gloss over" those differences (or as one person once said, "we just want to lock arms and sing "kumbaya - we are one!" ).

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

But what of their ontological status?

I though so but didn't want to presume since as you say chrismation is used alone, without re-baptism, in some situations.

Sounds a bit to me like a rather "touchy-feely" statement for so important a bestowal of status/order.

Dear Father Ambrose,

Bless.


Forgive me if I am misunderstanding the above, but in the Greek Orthodox church of America, Catholics who convert to Orthodoxy are not rebaptised, just chrismated.

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

" To do so creates a real danger of provoking schism amonmg the Orthodox." That is even clear to me.

"... there will be no tinkering with our actual theology." This is the issue for me: as practiced or stated? Perhaps a difference of nuance in understanding lex orandi, lex credendi. It is a Latin dictum after all. For the Orthodox position that you have described, however, and which I understand and accept as your view and perhaps all of Orthodoxy, my conclusion is to ask, would you care for some more theology with your economia?

Sorry. I joined this Board many years ago when I was NOT in communion with Rome. Now, I am, and happily, a member of the Catholic Church.

Dearest Hieromonk Ambrose,

I think you have selectively quoted St. Basil. He specifically states in an earlier portion of the same letter that he accepts the baptism of schismatics (which St. Cyprian did not do). Of the three that you mention in your quote - the Encratites, the Hydroparastatae, and the Cathari - he only rejected the baptism of the Encratites. Further, he mentions in another portion of the same letter, the very same position that Pope St. Stephen affirmed - that those who baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have performed a valid baptism. I am puzzled how Eastern Orthodox can use this letter from St. Basil in support of your "Cyprianic" ecclesiology.

Can you also answer a question for me. I have not found anything in the early Church to indicate that the principle of oikonimia can be applied to accomodate what is lacking in an invalid baptism or invalid ordination. I understand that oikonomia only applies to the reduction of canonical penalties for those who are already saved - that is, for those who are already validly baptized. Oikonomia only properly applies to canonical matter, and does not extend to matters pertaining to salvation, and cannot absolve the Church of the responsibility to baptize those who have not had a valid baptism, or ordain those who have not had a valid ordination. It seems that among all the apostolic Churches, it is only the Eastern Orthodox Church that has this peculiar belief. So I am wondering if you can explain it to me, or at least provide ECF proof for the belief.

Thank you.