www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Other Sacramental Mysteries BAPTISED IN POLAND, UNBAPTISED IN GREECE

Yes, but we are speaking here of Orthodox (and Byzantine Catholic?) mysteriological theology which differs from Roman Catholic theology and also incorporates the principle of “ekonomia” which I am not sure if Roman Catholics employ.

"Ekonomia" allows a bishop to act for the salvation of an individual and the benefit of the Church by retroactively valorising (infusing with grace) the empty sacramental form of a person converting from a non-Orthodox Church.

The concept of economy is certainly familiar to me but I am not sure at all about the patristic origin (no I am not an expert in patristic theology) of concepts such us “kat´ oikonomian”, “kat´ akrivian”, “with grace”, “without grace”, “schismatic en dynami“, “schismatic en energia”, “empty sacramental form”, “infusing retroactively with grace” .

The Orthodox have a similar puzzled reaction to Roman Catholic concepts of liceity and validity which do not exist in our theology.

You will find Orthodox using the word "validity" in the West since it can make dialogue easier but it doesn't imply the full concept understood by Roman Catholics.

Saint Basil the Great, Canon 1,adopted by the 7th Ecumenical Council....

"But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia that, by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it be accepted."

I'm nearly 100% certain the Latin Church does employ such "ekonomia" while calling terming it's uses "dispensation" and "convalidation". See here:
http://togetherforlifeonline.com/wedding/convalidation/

"Let their baptism be accepted" in Saint Basil is an enterely different theological concept from "Let their baptism be considered valid" in Latin theology?

In the Latin Church they have also a pretty obscure, at least for me, concept: Suplet Ecclesia.

By the way, about the concept of sacramental and its patristic or not origin, in "Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999" you can read that:

3. "Sacramental Economy" according to Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain: Nicodemus was clearly obliged, however, to reckon with the approach of Basil the Great and the ecumenically-ranked Synod in Trullo to baptism "outside" the visible Church, different though it was from that of Cyprian. His attempt to reconcile his sources with each other drew on a very ancient term, oikonomia, used in the New Testament and patristic literature to denote both God's salvific plan and the prudent "management" of the Church's affairs, and employed in later canonical literature as roughly the equivalent of "pastoral discretion" or stewardship. In adapting this term to differentiate between what he understood as the "strict" policy (akriveia) of the ancient Church and the apparently more flexible practice (oikonomia) of the Byzantine era, Nicodemus inadvertently bestowed a new meaning on the term oikonomia. By means of this new understanding, Nicodemus was able to harmonize the earlier, stricter practice of Cyprian with that of Basil and other ancient canonical sources; so he could read the fathers of the 4th century as having exercised "economy" with regard to baptism by Arians in order to facilitate their reentry into the Church, just as the Synod in Trullo had done with respect to the "Severians" and Nestorians, and could interpret the treatment of Latin baptism by Constantinople at the Synod of 1484 and later Orthodox rulings as acts of "economy" designed to shield the Orthodox from the wrath of a more powerful Catholic Europe. In his own day, he argued, the Orthodox were protected by the might of the Turkish Sultan, and so were again free to follow the perennial "exactness" of the Church. Latins were therefore now to be rebaptized.

So, according to the words of the agreement (an agreement with a lot of place for "Greek speaking Orthodoxy" sacramental theology and with a very small place for "Eastern Slavic Churches" sacramental theology), should we accept the Nicomedian (1749 – 1809) concept of “ekonomia” as a basic principle of Eastern (both Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic) mysteriological theology without farther discussion?

Obviously Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (Pedalion, Filokalia) is a saint and a very relevant theologian and canonist for the whole Orthodox Church, but is Nicomedian sacramental theology and canonical views accepted by all Orthodox Churches alike?

What about the decisions of the Council of Moscow in 1667? There is no sacramental theology or canonical justification behind them? Who was the "Saint Nicodemus" of that Council?

That has been an issue since the days of the councils and the use of Greek or Latin or both, which has led to centuries of arguments about what this or that actually meant.

I don't have an answer to Fransico's questions; its above my pay grade as they say in America, but his inquiry together with Father Ambrose's succinct responses clearly point out that the linguistic gap of the first millenium between east and west in trying to understand 'similar' concepts is as wide as ever in spite of fifty or so years of talk in the ecumenical dialogues.

Perhaps civility is the best we can accomplish, it's far better than bashing each other literally as was done to perfection in much of the early to mid twentieth century.

"Validity" would have been an unknown term to Saint Basil. The Orthodox know of it today,thanks to contact with Western Christians, but don't really employ it.

The various agreed statements put out by this particular dialogue are invariably confined to dusty shelves by the ancient Churches. One notices that not one Church has acted on any of the recommendations. I think that the Churches are unwilling to take instruction from the "children of the Diaspora."

Father Ambrose plays semantic games. "Let their baptism be accepted" means nothing less than St. Basil considered those baptisms to be efficacious; i.e., that through it the recipient died with Christ and arose from the waters reborn in Christ, that it indelibly marked him as one of God's people, that it remitted all his sins, and opened for him the potential for eternal life.

Leaving aside all the medieval hylomorphic mumbo-jumbo, when the Latin Church today says a baptism is valid, it means EXACTLY the same thing.

Fr Ambrose does not play semantic games.

And you'd be hard put to prove that Saint Basil was saying all the things you have attributed to him.

Saint Basil is not saying the baptism of heretics is valid. In fact it is clear he believes the opposite. But he is acknowledging a concession (economy) being made by the bishops of Asia to receive heretics into the Church.