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

Father Ambrose said:
“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”.
“Valid”, according to father Ambrose, is a Western concept unknown in Eastern sacramental theology, “economy” is, according to the Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, a concept created by Saint Nicodemus (a post-patristic and, probably, patristic in many other respects, modern Greek theologian) of the Holy Mountain different from the New Testament and patristic concept of “economy”. Why should we reject the Western concept of “validity” and admit the Nicodemian concept of “economy”? I am not a theologian, but I imagine that if a theologian assumes Nicodemian concepts and uses Nicodemian methods then he will be directly driven to Nicomedian conclusions (probably the baptisms of converts - former Catholics and Protestants - at the “arsanades” of Holy Mountain monasteries are also result of Saint Nicodemus sacramental theology, where the ideas of Saint Cyprian of Carthage and North African Church Councils have a relevant place, if I am not wrong. There was no Eastern or Orthodox sacramental theology before Saint Nicodemus? There is no Eastern or Orthodox sacramental theology besides Saint Nicodemus?

What can one say but Phooey! Small wonder the Orthodox Churches pay no attention to the Agreed Statements generated by this American group.

One of the Moderators here, Neil Foley, penned a very lucid message on Augustinian vs. Cyprianic sacramental theology. I think it's on this forum and I'll find it for us.

The Orthodox (Cyprianite) and Catholic (Augustinian) Theology
of Sacraments outside the Church

Neil Foley
_________________________________________________


I apologize if the following is rambling or seen as not completely relevant to the points being debated here, but I perceive the arguments as going in opposing circles and ignoring several basic considerations, on the part of both my Catholic and Orthodox brethren. The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. That is fact and we can discuss, debate, and disagree over whether the other's stance is or is not rational, but it won't change the fact that it is what it is. The resolution of such will only occur, if it ever does and hopefully it ultimately will, in circles more august than this revered forum. This leads me to presumptuously suggest that it is time to move on to other things.

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church).

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

The Augustinian theory................ effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only
the licitness of his acts.

The Cyprianic theory...................... effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or
jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory,

(although the Orthodox have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most perjorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent" Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory.

In the book "I confess one baptism" by a well know anti-ecumenist Greek Orthodox theologian, protopresbyter father George Metallinos (traslation by Priestmonk Seraphim) you can find the "Western" concept of "valitidy" in the expression "the problem of the validity of Western baptism".

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm

In the book the author identifies Orthodox sacramental theology with the "interpretation and application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos".

In this paper "A Critique of a Critique.
In Response to Professor John Erickson" you can read "The very fact that Professor Erickson is a former Lutheran renders the issue even more substantial". I do not know if it is so fair to write about an Orthodox theologian if he was Lutheran or not, if he was baptised or not by an orthodox priest...

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/erickson_metallinos.aspx

...That is because of it that I must humble add that people in Greece (obviously I was not a eyewitness of the celebration) told me that Professor Metallinos baptised his own mother, a former Roman Catholic woman from Corfu island in Greece, "something that renders the issue even more substantial".

None of the Orthodox writing here have denied the diversity of practice among our Churches when we receive converts from non-Orthodox Churches. This diversity does not give us any headaches.

In contrast to the reception of Metallinos’ RC mother we can contrast the 2010 reception of the Swiss Benedictine hermit and Patristics scholar Fr Gabriel Bunge. He was received in Moscow before the beginning of an All-Night Vigil by a bishop of the Church of Constantinople Kallistos (Ware) and a bishop of the Church of Russia Hilarion (Alfeyev.) He was received simply by the exchange of the triple kiss of love and the gift of a beautifully bound Book of the Holy Gospels.

http://www.pravmir.com/one-cannot-b...an-a-conversation-with-fr-gabriel-bunge/

One notices that the phrase you quote is not actually in the book but on the introductory page and probably written by another person. Have you read through the book and found Metallinos using the phrase?

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory.
Really?
Apparently some Orthodox Churches (“Greek speaking Orthodoxy”), adhere to the Augustinian theory, whereas other Orthodox Churches (“Eastern Slavic Churches”) to the Cyprianic theory.
Is not Saint Augustine a saint and a Church father for our Orthodox brethren?
Is not Saint Cyprian of Carthage a saint and a Church father both for the Orthodox and Catholic Churches?
Is not pope Saint Stephen I a saint and a Church father for our Orthodox brethren?
Were the Holy Fathers of the First and of the Second Ecumenical Council s adherents to the Cyprian theory?
Are the canons of the First and, specially, of the Second Ecumenical Councils, inspired in Cyprian sacramental theology?
Why to identify Orthodox sacramental theology with that of Saint Cyprian?
Is the "interpretation and application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos" more Orthodox that the "interpretation and application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Russian Church”?

ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΑΡΜΟΓΗ
ΤΟΥ Ζ’ ΚΑΝΟΝΟΣ ΤΗΣ Β’ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΚΗΣ ΣΥΝΟΔΟΥ
ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥΣ ΚΟΛΛΥΒΑΔΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΚΩΝ/ΝΟ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΟ

(συμβολή στην ιστορικοκανονική θεώρηση
του προβλήματος περί του κύρους
του δυτικού βαπτίσματος)

Έκδοση Β’ επηυξημένη
Μεταφορά στην Νέα Ελληνική: Αθανάσιος Σ. Λαγουρός

Εκδόσεις «ΤΗΝΟΣ»

Αθήνα 1996

Τη μακαρία μνήμη
των Κολλυβάδων Πατέρων
και πάντων των τούτοις συμψύχων
προαπελθόντων Πατέρων και Αδελφών ημών.

http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/tributes/gewrgios_metallhnos/confess_one_baptism.htm

from Google translator

validity κύρος, εγκυρότητα

Father A. and I have explained the Orthodox divergent points of view.

Even in RCC with its codex and Canon laws, not all bishops and not all regions handle difficult issues marching in uniformity.

What's the point here?

I think the point here is that the Orthodox can upset Roman Catholics because we have no settled theology on the reception of Catholics or other Christians. Instead our bishops work from a mishmash of ancient canons from centuries past - the same canons which we shared with the Roman Catholics until they created their unified Canon Law as late (I think) as 1917. Out of this the bishop will determine a pastoral decision which is pleasing to the Holy Spirit. Our converts can also be puzzled when they first encounter the concept of economy. Why did Fr Ambrose receive the Anglican minister by Chrismation but 5 years later he baptized his wife? It takes a while to settle into the idea. People need to see economy in action in a few instances before they begin to understand. And yes, the inability to create precedents and establish immutable principles can cause irritation at first. But we must not lose sight of what is aimed for – the spiritual well-being of the convert and the need to bring him/her into the saving fold of the Church and not to push him away.

Am I explaining this well? Probably not. But I have seen and addressed the confusion of converts many times.

κύρος can mean validity, authority, weight, etc.

Dear DMD, Dear father Ambrose,

We are here talking about "the validity of trinitarian baptism outside the bounds of the visible church" from the perspective both of the Catholic and the Orthodox Church (i. e. from a basically theoretical point of view), that is all, we are not talking here about personal and sometimes extremely difficult decisions or about the supposed superiority of one or another communion (Churches in communion with the Church of Rome, Churches in communion with the Church of Constantinople, New Rome) based on the degree of obedience of their members (bishops) or the existence of a common Code of Canon Law or not.

In Christ,
Francisco

http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/tributes/gewrgios_metallhnos/confess_one_baptism.htm

In the book of father Metallinos you can find the word κύρος 28 times (κύρους, in genitive, 7 times). The word εγκυρότητα appears only once.

The meaning of this word is clear in the introduction:

"Η συζήτηση περί το κύρος του βαπτίσματος των προσερχομένων στην Ορθοδοξία ετεροδόξων"

That is:

"The discussion on the validity of the baptism of the arriving to Orthodoxy of heterodox"

Google translator

Or better:

"The question about the validity of the baptism of those heterodox joining the Orthodox Church"



or

"THE DEBATE over the validity of the baptism of non-Orthodox who come over to Orthodoxy"

(translation by Priestmonk Seraphim)

WHO wrote that sentence? Was it Metallinos?

Can you give us references from INSIDE the book where Metallinos is writing of “validity”?

And be aware that “kyros” has other meanings – authority, weight (significance), value