www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Graceless Heretics?

I beg to disagree on this. The Holy Scriptures do not mention what is the proper way of administering Baptism. Rather it is silent!

In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord's grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."

Moreover, in the Latin Church as I've seen practiced here in my part of the world, baptism is not by sprinkling but by infusion (or pouring)

Again, here I disagree. I have snipped a lot of the post because it does not represent the teachings of the Church Fathers on this. As I've posted before Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo does not recognize the rebaptism of converts. Cyprian of Cathage admits that antiquity do not support his views on rebaptism of converts. Moreover, Re-baptism was resisted by Pope St. Stephen I as against the teaching of St. Cyprian of re-baptizing converts. This was attested by St. Vincent of Lerins in the Commonitorium.

The Carthaginian controversy of repeating Baptism was finally set at rest by a decision of the council of Arles, in 314, which ordered, in its Eighth Canon, that if baptism had been administered, even by heretics, in the name of the Trinity, then it was valid.

Here is a link on the same topic.
http://www.jbburnett.com/auctor/erickson_reception-svtq97.pdf

I think this goes to show that Orthodox who insist on triple immersion as the only "valid" form of baptism are giving a human tradition priority over God's revelation and the Apostolic Faith.

The distinctions between essentials and non-essentials for which the West is notorious suddenly appear pretty necessary. Baptism MUST use water and the Trinitarian formula; it MAY be done by immersion, aspersion, or infusion (pouring). The witness of the Apostolic Fathers indicates as much.

I think that divisions and in-fighting amongst Christians, albeit the result of human failing, can be a grave stumbling block for some. Nevertheless, in the interests of the Truth, I must defend Catholic Baptism. Despite the speculation of *certain* fathers, the Holy Catholic Church has always taught that form, matter, and intention are the only things necessary for a valid baptism.

FORM: the Trinitarian formula.
MATTER: The use of water upon the head of an unbaptized person.
INTENTION: the baptized must have the intention to receive the Sacrament and the minister must have the intention to "do what the Church does" in giving the Sacrament.

In cases where heretics' baptisms were judged invalid, it was because of the absence of one or more of these elements. E.g. the Mormons lack proper *form* because when they say "Father Son & Holy Spirit" they mean something completely different. Certain prot sects lack form because they do not use the Trinitarian formula, etc.

The Catholic Church has never questioned the validity of Orthodox baptisms, despite the heteropraxis of Polish and Lithuanian imperialists. Moreover, it seems that the Orthodox Church, in the decisions of Constantinople and Moscow (1484 and 1667) recognizes the validity of our baptisms. The fact that many "Orthodox" individuals, monasteries, and jurisdictions do not recognize those decisions is troubling.

Peace to all.

LatinTrad

LatinTrad,

The problem is, this is not an Orthodox take on the subject.

For example, if an Orthodox Bishop defrocks a Priest under his juristiction (say, for some offence), that person is not simply lacking permission to celebrate Holy Mysteries - they simply do not have the ability to do such, period. They cannot become vangante clerics, and say "valid, if illicit Masses", for example.

This is a strain of thought which goes to the most ancient witnesses of the Apostolic Faith - for example, St.Ignatios (of Antioch) taught that Divine Liturgies celebrated apart from the Bishop (refering to sects) are not valid.

Logically speaking, how can the Holy Mysteries (which are acts of the Church), be taken into captivity by those who break away from Her?

The simple answer would be, because that "valid form" really did exist, it really did happen - it was, and so it is. In this sense, at the very least, a "mark" of sorts has been left.

By completing the form of the rite (chrismation, or even in some cases, by repentence and profession of the true Faith), the Church is assuming ownership of whatever was done right beforehand. As for the matter of grace infusing the old, dead form, I don't think this is as strange as some make it seem. For example, can anyone claim to tell me what the exact moment is, in a Baptism, when the Holy Spirit regenerates a man? Or at which exact moment during the epiklesis, does the Holy Spirit transform the bread and wine into the Life-giving Body and Blood of the Lord?

It is for this precise reason that this is called "economy" in the first place - it is not the retro-active gracing of a rite, or even the recognition of something having "been there already" as the ecumenists falsely teach - rather, it is the completion (by the infusion of God's grace, His uncreated Life) of what was, of itself (heresies and schisms ignored) a "good start."

It should also be understood, that the use of economy (or exactitude, which in the strictest sense is normative) is up to the discretion of the Church. Typically leniency has been allowed in the cases of converts coming from sects where there is at the very least, the proper form of the sacrament (say, Baptism) and something resembling a proper teaching about it. However, very often even such "qualifying groups" will not have their converts received via leniency, in situations where hostility from that group against the Church has erupted, or where there is a lot of confusion (and/or potential scandal) involved in such an approach. This is due to pastoral considerations - typically to draw a very clearn line between the Church, and the schism the convert is leaving behind.

This is why, for much of the Greek Church's history, reception of Latins was according to exactitude, where as for much of the history of the Slavic Churches (though not totally), a more lenient practice predominated. However, it is interesting to note that in our times, because of a perceived (and I agree with them on this) confusion amongst many people on the nature of the Church, and several other factors, the various "Old Calendar" Churches, and in fact the more conservative/traditional "mainstream Orthodox" (like the Jerusalem Patriarchate) hold "exactitude" as the norm for receiving all converts.

Seraphim

Not quite. It's quite explicit that they're supposed to be done in the Name of the Holy Trinity, and that they involve immersion - the word "baptism" itself refers to "coating", like water overwhelming something.

You won't get any argument from me on this. My problem is not what the Didache says, but how it is understood to justify something as "normal" which is in fact (even in the text itself) "abnormal, and allowed only by circumstances."

There is a reason why baptism by pouring is not preffered in the Didache text - it's the same reason why the Church 'till now will accept it in cases of emergency within the Church (like the Patristic examples cited), but it can never become the norm; it does not clearly, and visibly express the nature of the Holy Mystery itself. How can water poured over a head, symbolize buriel and ressurection the way the genuine, apostolic practice of immersion does?

Even the Pope and the RC catechism recognize this point - that baptism by immersion better symbolizes the content of this sacrament. The Orthodox would only say further, that it is so much so, that to actually choose to make "pouring" a matter of policy is incomprehensible.

I'm curious where St.Cyprian affirms such a thing, since it is quite evident from my reading that so called "re-baptism" is in fact normative in older practice (two big examples that come to mind are the Apostolic Canons and the Ignatian Epistles, both of which tie the validity of Holy Mysteries to their being celebrated in the Church.) What I think can be fairly said, is that more lenient, "economic" practices of later times are developments meant to facilitate new circumstances (mainly, the existance of so many heretics and schisms). However, the underlying principle involved is the same (whether one is baptized outright, or is received into the Church with leniency, in which case the tacit understanding is that the Church is correcting what was wanting...filling what was empty.)

I'd be interested in reading the Canons of Arles - could you provide them for us, or at the very least, the 8th canon?

Seraphim

Alright, Seraphim. If you wanna play hardball, we can play hardball too.

I agree with you on one thing--modern ecumenism as a pastoral approach has blurred the nature of the True Church in people's minds.

I would like to see your documentation from St. Ignatios of Antioch about the defrocked clerics.

Regarding the invalidity of Masses offered by a defrocked cleric--the Catholic position is more rational and more in line with Scripture. We read in the Psalms, "YHWH has sworn and He will not repent; thou art a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek." The Fathers understood this verse as a prefigurement of the New Priesthood established by Christ. Thus, Tradition holds that once a man is ordained to the sacred priesthood, he is configured to Christ forever. Even if he is stripped of the right to excercize his priesthood, he is a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek. Moreover, a lot of "Orthodox" don't seem to hold your view--Filaret in Kiev continues to offer the Holy Mysteries, with a large following, despite his being defrocked.

Regarding the "True Church": we can play hardball there too. Despite the fact that the Catholic Church's current pastoral approach is to emphasize the "ecclesial elements" that have been, as you say, taken and kept by schismatics and other dissidents, here is the authoritative teaching of Pope Pius XI (a great enthusiast for preserving the Eastern Traditions, by the way):

"We believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head,[4] with an authority teaching by word of mouth,[5] and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace;[6] for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom,[7] to a house,[8] to a sheepfold,[9] and to a flock.[10] This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations."[11] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?"[12] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[13]

"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."[26] "


This is the Faith.

Dar Latin Trad,

Please watch it when you accuse Orthodox of "getting it all mixed up!"

The RC view of the validity of the priesthood among heretics is not more rational or "scriptural."

You are a priest forever - how can that apply to the situation of priests who are excommunicated from the Church? Your scriptural applications here leave much to be desired, Big Guy!

As for the Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarch of Kyiv, he is viewed as noncanonical by BOTH the Orthodox mainstream and Roman Catholic Churches. What does that have to do with anything? He continues to serve liturgies notwithstanding as he does not consider himself to be outside the Church. Again - what in heaven's name are you up to here?

The Orthodox Church (and please don't place that name in quotation marks - it's rude and we don't allow that on this site) believes that valid ordination must also be conjoined to communion with the Church of Christ for a valid and full celebration of the Mysteries/Sacraments.

It is not that Orthodoxy DENIES that the sacraments celebrated in this way are valid, but that it simply cannot say for sure since outside the Church there is only darkness etc.

Such a priest, when he returns to the Church, can be accepted along with his priesthood, but a decision on the part of the Bishops is necessary.

In the time of St Hilary of Poitiers, there was quite a rift with those who said that Christians who apostatized under torture could, by no means, ever be received back into the Church . . .

St Luciperro of Cagliari was one of those - and his cult is limited to Sardinia only as a result.

Even though someone is ordained, he may only serve in communion with the Church and with the permission of his bishop to whom he submits.

Our Lord Himself said to treat those who refuse to submit to the Church as heathen.

Alex

Dear Latin Trad,

You are very good at quoting long passages. But the context? How do you say "Huh?" in Latin?

Pius XI was NOT in any way referring to the Orthodox in making that statement - but to Protestantism exclusively.

That Roman Catholicism believes itself to be the true Church - really?

If it weren't for you, who would keep us up to date on all these major theological developments?

Was there a Vatican news release to this effect that we here missed?

I just HATE it when that happens!

Well, at least we can rely on you to keep us all informed here on TRUE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

Perhaps the Administrator and you can work on creating a thread so you can give out Latin language lessons?

That way we'll be able to read the Roman documents in the original language and avoid running off the straight and narrow in future.

I also heard a rumour about the doctrine of the Assumption.

Is that true? Did it happen recently?

What do I know? I'm an Eastern Christian after all.

And I'm forever hanging out with other Eastern Christians.

You are a real blessing to this community!

Alex

I'm sorry, Alex.

I did not say "the Orthodox get it all mixed up," I said that Logos' "Orthodox friend" had gotten it all mixed up.

Regarding the "You are a priest forever" issue: maybe my argument needs amplification, but so does yours and Seraphim's. So far all I have seen are assertions, and rhetorical questions like "how can a priest outside the Church still be a priest?" What is freely asserted is just as freely denied. We can treat them like heathens, yes--but they are still priests in the eyes of God.

When people like Seraphim Reeves come on the forum and start saying that the baptisms and all other sacraments in the Catholic Church are invalid, and that we are cut off from all grace, I think that Catholics should be allowed to respond. Seraphim himself has observed that there is a double standard here, with Orthodox posters being able to spout whatever they want, and westerners silenced and condemned for so much as asking the wrong questions.

In response to his hardball, I reminded him that the Catholic Church has not given up--nor could she give up--her title and claim as the One True Church of Christ. Read Pius XI's words. We don't need crumbs from the likes of S.R.--we have the One Lord, the One Faith, and the One Baptism.

I would also like to reiterate that I think fighting amongst Christians is a great scandal. We must all pray that the Lord can overcome our human weaknesses and pride.

God Bless, Alex. I'm sorry if I am upsetting you again, but this is where I stand right now.

LatinTrad, a sinner

Dr. Roman,
There's no need to be sarcastic. I was speaking to Seraphim Reeves, not to you.

Why does Pius XI refer to Photius, if he was talking about the prots alone?

I'm just trying to speak what I know. If you accept this doctrine, then there's no need to be upset. If you don't, then don't get mad at me for saying it.

LatinTrad

Alex, this is unbelievable! C4C and Seraphim Reeves treat us to some of the most obnoxious bigotry i have ever encountered on the Internet--and you take Latin Trad to task????

What is wrong with this picture?

Are there any Byzantine Catholics out there who don't automatically give a free pass to even the most outrageous Orthodox statements...while jumping all over their Catholic brethren at the slightest provocation?

I used to think I wanted to be Byzantine Catholic. Not any more. Not after encountering this board.

Whew.

ZT

I guess I missed it.
Nope, there it is.

Dear Zoe,

You are not being fair here.

Yes, I let loose a bit on Latin Trad. As he said of me, "we can take it."

Have you read his posts? He has broken some basic rules with respect to the Eastern Churches, especially in a markedly condescending attitude.

I simply called him up on the carpet on it.

I've told him before that if he wants to come out as an ultramontane Catholic and refer to "Orthodox" and quote things out of context concerning "schismatics" et al., then he belongs to: a) another age of the Catholic Church and b) not on this forum.

You know that I'm a Latinized Byzantine. I'm actually rather proud of my versatility in the ritual department.

And I wear a papal coat of arms pin on my lapel.

Despite that, I think some of Latin Trad's attitude toward the East stinks.

And it breaks the rules set out on this forum.

I myself, as you know, was called on the carpet for what I said about Humanae Vitae.

When I realized that I was wrong, I asked forgiveness and I submitted.

This is a forum where we believe that we posters are not infallible (unless someone can show that the Pope has taken up posting here).

My chiding Latin Trad was not as a Latin.

I've chided Orthodox, such as Andrew Rubis, for his view on the Assumption.

When it comes to pointing out when someone is wrong, we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of religion.

I'm sorry that my posts have turned you off Byzantine Catholicism.

I don't know what we'll do without you.

Alex

Dear Friends,

I apologise for any and all offence I've given to Latin Trad and ZoeTheodora here.

But if I'm wrong about being upset about condescension toward Eastern Christianity, please tell me about it.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted things.

Alex

Alex,

I used quotation marks around the word "Orthodox" because I didn't think Seraphim Reeves would consider Filaret to be more than borderline Orthodox.

I don't know why you're perceiving any condescension on my part at all. The word "schismatic" was not brought into this conversation by me, but by our brother S.R. And he used it in reference to you and your sui juris Church just as much as to the heathen West.

I agree with Zoe--if an Orthodox poster is within the "rules" to assert that all our Sacraments are invalid and without grace, then we are within the rules to respond to him. I'm thoroughly sick and tired of having my face beaten with my hands tied behind my back.

Respectfully,
LatinTrad