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

Eusebius of Nicomedia vacillated 2 or 3 times between orthodoxy and Arianism. I believe that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both believe he was a canonical bishop at the time of Saint Constantine's baptism.

I see Stuart has addressed this competently.

Was Eusebius "a bishop in good standing within the Church" a "canonical bishop" or rather "a bishop in good standing with the Emperor", a bishop of the "State Church"?

What about Anastasios of Constantinople? Was Anastasios a "canonical bishop"?

Anastasios was the patriarch of Constantinople from 730 to 754. He succeeded Germanos I (715–730). Anastasios was heavily involved in the controversy over icons (images). His opinion of icons changed twice. First he opposed them, then he favored them, and finally he opposed them again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Anastasius_of_Constantinople

Were the sacraments (baptisms, ordinations) celebrated by Atanasios, "canonical Patriarch" of Constantinople, "valid" always or only during the period "he favored icons"?

What about unionists Patriarchs of Constantinople John XI, Joseph II and Metrophanes II? Were not they "canonical bishops"? What about the "validity" of the sacraments celebrated by them?

What about patriarch Cyril I of Constantinople?

Were not all they "canonical bishops" till their death or deposition?

In Church History can we find both open or secret heretics among the lists of "canonical bishops"?

Are these bishops inside or outside the bounds of the visible Church?

Can a "heretic bishop" be considered a "canonical bishop" only for the fact that the Church of Christ could not condem him because he was in "good standing with political power"?

Does the "validity" of the sacraments celebrated by a bishop depend on his faith (orthodox, unorthodox) or on his formal condemnation or not by the Church?

Are the sacraments celebrated by an "unorthodox" "canonical" bishop "valid"?

Are the sacraments celebrated by an "orthodox" bishop unfairly condemned by the Church "valid"?

As far as I understand
Roman Catholic theology, yes. Such sacrament have validity but not liceity.

I do not know the Byzantine Catholic view.

My heart was groaning within me. Such a plethora of questions! How can I answer them all?

Then realisation struck; I cannot answer them. They are are posited on the assumption of a Roman Catholic concept of “validity.” That is outside my parameters of knowledge.

All the personages and events you mention belong to the period when the Pope saw them as under his authority. So you should be able to find answers from within your own Church theologians and historians.

1. Father Ambrose says that "validity" is a "Roman Catholic" concept, but we are talking here about Orthodox clergy who do re-baptise or do re-ordain former Catholic or former Protestant converts because they consider, rightly or not, that these converts are unbaptised or unordained. So, independly of the historical origin (in Western Scholasticism) of the concept, I would say that this is a non irrelevant concept in current Orthodox sacramental theology.

See, for example:

George D. Metallinos, I confess One Baptism: Interpretation and Application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos (a Contribution to the Historico-canonical Evaluation of the Problem of the Validity of Western Baptism), ISBN 978-960-85542-0-7, St. Pauls Monastery, Holy Mountain, Greece, 1994

"Validity of Roman Catholic Orders" (http://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders)

2. We are not talking here about the Pope of Rome or about Western sacramental theology, we are talking about the bounds of the visible Church.

My question is if some canonical Orthodox jurisdictions and "Old calendarists re-ordain clergy from among Roman Catholicism while the Russian Church vests them" (see http://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders)why do they so?

I understand that those who do not re-ordain do so because they consider that these former Catholic priests (as Saint Alexis Toth or Archbishop Nathaniel Popp)are not unordained, as far as a bishop ordained them.

I understand that those who do re-ordain do so because they considered that they are unordained, besides the fact that a "bishop" ordained them. For them there is a problem with these "bishops" (relationship of heretics and schismatics with the Church of Christ). What is wrong with these bishops? What they do believe (secret heretics) or rather what they do teach (open heretics)? Is the problem in their formal relationship with the Church (If they have been excommunicated or not, for example)?

As you know I searched this book and Metallinos mentions neither validity nor liceity.

See message 400468.

The reference to "validity" occurs, as you have quoted several times,on the frontispiece of the book and was, I would say, almost certainly written by another hand than Metallinos'.

For the past 30 years Archbishop Dionysios Psathas never baptized a single Catholic convert in the local diocese.

For the last 6 years the new Archbishop Amphilochios Tsouras has baptised every Catholic convert.

How can I explain that to a Roman Catholic such as yourself who seems to work only with concepts of validity and liceity and does not understand both the complicated history of this question and the use of ‘economy’?

How can I explain that to a Roman Catholic such as yourself who seems to work only with concepts of validity and liceity and does not understand both the complicated history of this question and the use of ‘economy’?

1. The concept of liceicy was used here only by "Hieromonk Ambrose" and not by "Francisco".

2. Francisco has never referred to father Ambrose as a Russian Orthodox but as an Orthodox Hieromonk belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (see profile).

3. In the Greek (original) version of father Metallinos´ book on line the word κύρος occurs 7 times in genitive and 28 times in nominative or accusative, whereas the word εγκυρότητα occurs 3 times. Francisco says that these words mean in this book "validity" whereas father Ambrose says that they mean something else.

4. The fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, as well as those of the Council in Trullo, and Sain Basil of Caesarea did not use the concept of ‘economy’. Francisco considers the use of this concept (a concept "employed in later canonical literature as roughly the equivalent of "pastoral discretion" or stewardship") completely unnecesary.

5. Father Ambrose does not answer, if I am not wrong, to Franciscos´ question about the relationship of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Saint Constantine´s baptizor according to some historians, with the visible Church: Was Eusebius, a canonical bishop who signed "with hand only, not heart" the Confession of the First Council of Nicaea, using Amidon expression,inside or outside the visible Church?

Validity and liceity are intimately linked in Catholic sacramental theology.

Fr Ambrose is a monk of the Russian Orthodox Church. His "boss" is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow whom he commemorates at every church service as "our great Lord and Father Kirill...."

Francisco is free to consider that but he would be wrong. The use of economy plays a vital role, especially when Orthodox bishops are making decisions as to the mode of reception of converts from the many Christian confessions.

Fr Ambrose has already answered, saying he believes that both our Churches consider Saint Constantine was baptized by Eusebius at a time when Eusebius was a canonical bishop.

The author(s) of the articles "Eusebius of Nicomedia" at the Orthodox wiki is not as "polite" as I am when he or she writes:

"Eusebius of Nicomedia was initially bishop of Berytus (modern day Beirut) in Phoenicia. He later became Bishop of Nicomedia before finally becoming Archbishop of Constantinople. He was a heretic, a supporter of Arius, who used his influence among the members of the family of Constantine the Great to further the Arian position as well as his personal esteem".


"As bishop of the area of Constantine’s residence, Eusebius baptized Constantine in May 337. The baptism occurred only a few days before Constantine died on May 22, 337. While not a confirmed Arian, Constantius fell under the intrigues of Eusebius, who played up to the emperor while favoring Arian policies. In 339, having strengthened his position with the emperor and through his intrigues at the court, Eusibius engineered his appointment as Archbishop of Constantinople by expelling Paul I of Constantinople".

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Eusebius_of_Nicomedia

If the author of the article is right, then we must agree that Saint Constantine was baptised by Eusebius, canonical bishop of Nicomedia and heretic. There is no problem with this if you admit the canons of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils about the [validity] of the baptism of the Arians, but certanly we have got a serious problem if we consider that the sacraments of the heretics are "without grace" (also a later concept I do not like at all).

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paul_the_Confessor

Our father among the saints Paul the Confessor or Paul I of Constantinople lived during the fourth century, and served as Archbishop of Constantinople during three periods: from 337 to 339, from 341 to 342, and from 346 to 351.
The Arians, led by the Eastern emperor, Constantius, revolted against the election of Paul to his see. Emperor Constantius held a council, banishing Paul and electing in his stead Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius also banished other Orthodox bishops to Rome. After Eusebius died, Paul returned to Constantinople. Although he was greeted warmly by the people, Emperor Constantius once again banished him to Rome. The Western emperor, Constans, returned Paul to Constantinople with a threatening letter to his eastern co-ruler, resulting in Paul's reinstatement as archbishop.
After Constans was murdered in a palace coup, Paul was banished again, but now to Cucusus in Armenia. There, celebrating the Divine Liturgy, Arians came upon him and strangled him with his omophorion.
In 381, Emperor Theodosius the Great transferred St. Paul's relics to Constantinople. Nearly a thousand years later, in 1326, they were further moved to Venice.

Definately Archbishop Paul the Confessor, dispossesed several times of his see, was a bishop of the Christ´s Church.

We are agreed that he was a heretic. But it is dishonest of the author to write so simplistically. Eusebius vacillated a couple of times between orthodoxy and Arianism.

If you want an accurate view of either Eusebius or Paul go to Catholic historians. The Pope claims them as bishops of his Church in submission to him.

I must admit I have lost track of what you are trying to prove. Sorry.

I am trying to prove that the Fathers of the Council in Trullo (Canon 95), for example, established that those heretics baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Trinitarian baptism) “coming over to Orthodoxy”, should not be rebaptized, because they considered that the validity (“Remember, O Lord, according to the multitude of thy compassions, my unworthiness, pardon me every offense both voluntary and involuntary, and withhold not, because of my sins, the grace of thy Holy Spirit from these Gifts here set forth" Liturgy of Saint Basil) of the sacraments had to do not with the virtue (grave sins, public or not), the faith (secret or public heresy) or the formal relationship of the minister with the Church (yes, in Church history we have, unfortunately, enemies of the faith among the lists of canonical bishops and bishops that, because of their Orthodox faith, found themselves outside the limits of the visible Church, deposed, excommunicated…).

In Spanish we have got this saying: “Ni son todos los que están, ni están todos los que son” (possible translations into English: “Neither all who are here are [such], nor all who are [such], are here”, "Neither are here all who matter nor they matter all who're here", “Neither all who are here are [such], nor all who are [such], are here", "Neither all that glitters is gold nor all that's gold glitters"). In J. R. R. Tolkien´s words:

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost

Eusebius, for example, was “in the Church”, but, apparently, was not “of the Church”, he glittered but he was not gold.

The references to the Pope or to Catholic Church historians are completely unnecessary here. As far as I know both Eusebius and Paul were archbishops of Constantinople but I do not know if they were always in communion with the bishop of Rome (I would never say that the Pope of Rome was their “boss” or that they were “in submission to him”, or that they belonged to the “Church of the Pope”, I do not use “such” expressions). When I say that Paul of Constantinople belonged to Christ´s Church I mean that he is a citizen of “Jerusalem, the heavenly assembly, and church of the first-born that are written in heaven” (Liturgy of Saint James). The memory of Paul of Constantinople is venerated both by the Catholic (June 7?) and the Orthodox Church (November 6). The memory of Eusebius (originally of Berytus, later of Nicomedia, and finally of Constantinople) is venerated by nobody. The Orthodox and the Catholic Church agree in this point too.

"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us".

1 John 2:19