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

Thanks, elexeie, for the links.

Zoe,

It is a matter of immemorial tradition, that the normative form of Baptism is via immersion - the very symbolism St.Paul attributes to the rite (which indicates the grace being given to the one being baptized) is only illustrated properly by immersion.

Respectfully, I have to say that C4C is confusing two issues - the issue of "baptismal form", and the issue of sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church.

If by "validity" we simply mean proper form, than this exists outside of the Orthodox Church. The issue with typical RC practice in this regard, however, is the normative use of what ordinarily should only be used in emergencies (baptism by pouring.) If you ask any Orthodox Priest, he'll tell you it's possible to baptize by pouring - however, this is only to be done with people who are so frail that immersing them may cause them serious harm, OR in some similar emergency (say a person is dying, and there is a scarcity of water.) This is why the Didache, for example, lists it below immersion.

Please keep in mind, it is not the Orthodox who are doing anything weird here by insisting that "immerssion" is normative - the Latins continued to do this well after the schism as well.

The issue of sacraments being valid in the sense that they give grace, is something different. Strictly speaking, this is something which only the Church can do - the Church is the theandric Body of Christ (Christ, with human beings grafted in as members, members of Him), and thus it makes little sense (from an Orthodox view) to insist that those who are not joined to Christ can somehow possess His Priesthood, offer His oblation, Baptize sinners, etc. This is the fundamental issue in regard to RC baptisms - though the use of pouring as the norm is lamentable, it "can" be corrected, as far as I know, by reception into the Orthodox Church.

What can I say? My view on these things is informed by the teachings of the Church. That's like me assuming you're a bigot for believing your Pope is the Vicar of Christ and ruler of all Christians.

I do agree with this - I think Trad should be cut some slack here. I also can understand if there's a bit of emotion involved here (so long as it doesn't get out of control) - though I do not know why anyone needs me, or Orthodox Christians, to endorse their sacraments if they believe they're in the right. It really shouldn't bother you.

I'm not going to get into my "affiliations", because it's been my experience that many RC apologists unwittingly try to pit various elements in the Orthodox world against each other for a polemical end. I'm simply stating what I've gained from my teachers in Christ, and in particular from the Canons, Fathers, and Sacred Scriptures.

My position is only "extreme" in so far as it's unpopular, and probably bad politics. But it is the nectar of the Fathers, as unpalatable a medicine as that can be at times.

As far as desiring "Scriptural proof" for the invalidity of RC sacraments, this is misguided to some extent (though the principles involved are in Scripture - I just don't think they particularly point to the RCC, but to heretics and schisms in general) - it's like me asking you to justify from the Scriptures why Pope Leo XIII ruled that Anglican orders are "invalid."

Seraphim

LatinTrad,

If this is a meaningful similarity, then I suppose one can argue that superficially, the universally celibate Latin clergy bears a resemblence to that of certain gnostic sects. Of course, the motives are for the most part, very different. Thus, so much for apparently incriminating "similarities."

Seraphim

First: Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not an article of faith. As such, it can be lifted at any time.

Second: It is not "universal" even in the Latin Rite. There are a number of married Latin Rite priests, most of them converts from High Church Anglicanism or Lutheranism who were granted special dispensation via the "pastoral provision" to be ordained as Catholic priests without renouncing their spouses.

So your analogy fails.

Praying for your return to the One Church Jesus founded upon Peter the Rock....

In the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Fatima,

ZT

Elexeie,

What I find most interesting about this, is that this is fundamentally an argument (the Papal - St.Cyprian dispute) over praxis, not dogmatic content.

While later on when the Latins numerated their sacraments, they listed them as "seven" (a number of convienience, btw., which some Orthodox have adopted in later ages - though most realize this was due to latin influence, and is not entirely correct, since Orthodoxy has no strict distinction between "sacrament" and "sacramentals" the way Catholicism has), early on (and this is still Orthodox practice), the supposedly seperate mysteries of "Baptism" and "Chrismation" were part of the same rite; there was no such thing as baptizing someone, and leaving them unconfirmed (save it was some extreme emergency.)

Thus, the "seperatness" of Baptism and Chrismation in the Orthodox tradition is highly questionable. In fact, unlike the Latins, Chrismation, or variants on this (the mystery of confirming in the Holy Spirit) historically is repeated in the case of apostates (such as those who defected to Islam, but then repented and came back to the Church.) This represents a very different appraisal of this Mystery from the RC one.

Thus, when I read the above canon, I do not see the fundamental difference in faith regarding the Church and Her Mysteries, but a decidedly different approach to the "how" of receiving converts.

I think it's anachronistic for modern Latins, to read their medieval theology into the canons of Arles - particularly when they insist upon the imposition of hands upon heretics who undoubtedly (by modern RC standards) had a "valid priesthood" and "valid confirmations" (in Sacred Scripture, the imposition of hands is the root of the Mystery of Confirmation/Chrismation.)

I also think it's anachronistic to believe that the canon of Arles (which obviously was never accepted universally, since Orthodox practice in this regard never held it's line) is some proof that the Latins at this point were endorsing schismatic/heretical baptisms as being "grace bearing", or the same as those of the Church of Christ. Please keep in mind, that even after the Latins developed a whole system of "characters" and such for certain sacraments, it's only relatively recently that they would admit that non-Catholic mysteries in fact "bear grace." For example, the RC savant Thomas Aquinas (in his famous Summa) teaches that while heretical baptisms can be "valid" (leave a character), they're not grace bearing without the "Catholic faith" (they do not remit sins). Ditto for heretical Masses - they may be "valid", but no one can benefit from them outside of the RCC.

Thus, there is not this huge variance between the traditional Orthodox view, and even the view of the RCC in the post-schism Middle Ages (simply that the Orthodox Church never dogmatized on the notion of there being a "character" - particularly when there were earlier Fathers who referred to heretical baptisms and blessings as "pollutions" and "maledictions"!) - rather the big difference is between the Orthodox view and the very modern position of the now very "ecumenical" RCC.

Which, btw., is the Orthodox position to this day - the decision whether exactitude or leniency will be practiced in the reception of converts from heresy and schism, is at the discretion of Bishops (or their consent as brothers in their Synod). However, what is not different (in the genuine Orthodox confession) is the fundamental belief that when heretics are received into the Church, they receive the grace of re-birth through that reception; whether it be by leniency, or by exactitude.

There is no crime committed in baptizing a heretic, save only in the eyes of those for whom this was not their accepted custom (or what came to be their accepted custom.) However, the more open (Orthodox) view predominated in areas beyond papal control.

Of course, this is a decidedly Latin take on the matter. What's interesting is the accepted Orthodox view, allows for the leniency the Latins had come to view as normative custom - in fact, at various times in the Eastern Churches, this was the norm as well. A lot of the decision ("re"baptize or not) had to do with discretionary issues - like whether the sect converts were leaving was being aggressive towards the Church, or there somehow needed to be no confusion about the boundaries of the Orthodox Church. This is why, for example, the Old Calendarists insist now on reception by full baptism, chrismation, profession, etc. (due to the confusion that the ecumenical movement has caused.)

Yes, "may". Who knows. "May" as in maybe, maybe not. It's certainly not the operative position of the Orthodox Church (which included the Latins at one time) to assume that outside of the Church genuine Mysteries and "Churchly" acts can be found.

Seraphim

Thank you for the slack, Seraphim.

You are right about the second point too--the fact that those who reject the Petrine primacy also reject the Church's Sacraments does not "bother" me except in so far as it provokes a sense of concern about my separated brothers' salvation.

Your stance on our Sacraments does seem to contradict that taken by your Patriarchs in previous centuries, however. Oh well. I trust you are in good faith, and pray for your enlightenment.

LatinTrad

P.S. Hey Logos Teen this is for you too. You've probably seen it before:

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; . . . since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' "

No, it is evidenced by your very "rebuttal" - read what I said; there is a superficial similarity between normative Latin practice in this regard, and that of gnostic sectarians of old; but the substance of the two is almost totally disimilar. That was my point, and thanks for re-iterating it for me.

In the same way, the guilt by "association" (in this case, again, superficial similarity) between Donatist positions and that of Orthodox Christianity on heretical/schismatical sacraments, is equally false. Confounding the two would be as unfair as insisting on a meaningful correlation between long standing RC practice on celibacy (which up until recently, was most certainly universal, and to this day is normative), and gnostic practices.

Seraphim

One further question, Seraphim....

If the notion that Catholic Baptism is "graceless" is indeed the teaching of the Orthodox Church...then how come most EO jurisdictions reject this notion? How come even the Patriarch of Moscow (not known for his ecumenical bonhomie) accepts the validity of Catholic sacraments (including baptism)?

You say that your study of Scripture, Canons, and Fathers has led you to the conclusion that Catholic sacraments are graceless...including Catholic baptism.

You represent this as Orthodox Church teaching.

Yet many other Orthodox accept the validity -- the "graced-ness" -- of Catholic sacraments. Even most of those EO jurisdictions that rechrismate converts from Catholicism accept RC baptism as valid. Very few rebaptize converts who have previously undergone Trinitarian baptiosm...right?

So, if all those jurisdictions and hierachs disagree with you...then who is right? Presumably these hierarchs are as familiar with Scripture, Canons, and Fathers as you are. Perhaps even more familiar.

So, how do you know who's right and who's wrong? How do you know you're right and they're wrong? How do you know what really is the authentic Orthodox teaching on the status of Catholic baptism? If other jurisdictions hold a different view from yours, then how do you know that's not Orthodox Church teaching? "By what authority" can you assert that your view = definitive Orthodox Teaching, seeing as most of the Orthodox world seems to reject your view?

(Of course, this underscores one of the fundamental flaws in Orthodox ecclesiology: the lack of a central authority for settling disputed theological questions. Without such an authoritative arbiter [i.e., a living Magisterium], it becomes impossible to determine precisely what "official" Orhodox teaching really is on any given point. The result is hopeless confusion, with different groups claiming that their conflicting views all represent Orthodox teaching.)

Blessings,

ZT

LatinTrad

I'd like you to supply some evidence to that effect. What has gone back and forth, is whether or not Latins and Protestants are to be received by exactitude, or economy (leniency) - and I've explained why this is, in other parts of the thread. But for your benefit, I will explain it again (briefly.)

Strictly speaking, the outward form of the rite of Baptism (at least the actual use of water, the threefold immersion/pouring, the words invoked, if not the whole Baptismal rite itself) in the RCC and most of the mainline Protestant denominations (the "classical Reformation" so to speak) are valid. What is fundamentally problematic about these baptisms, however, is that they are ministered outside of the Church. Since the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ, the continuation of Pentecost unto the present day, the Church cannot accept these baptisms of themselves as "true, Orthodox Baptisms" - that is to say, as Grace bearing Mysteries.

The understanding is then, if someone has been "validly" (as I've described it) baptized in a non-Orthodox church, this baptism is given content by their reception into the Orthodox Church. Whether this be by Chrismation/laying on of hands (as was common in the western Church, as the 8th canon of Arles demonstrates), or the varying Eastern practice/ancient practice of going through the full Baptismal rite, the grace of re-birth and joining to the Body of Christ is bestowed by the Orthodox Church.

If such "baptisms" were understood to effect salvation or join one to the Body of Christ, then frankly there is no point in people becoming Orthodox at all. Interestingly, this has been, in effect, the result of the RCC's teaching at Vatican II; the Vatican accepts the Orthodox Churches as true Churches (with various minor issues interupting their communion with Rome), and see's no reason in the order of salvation for them to "go Catholic." Thus, the Vatican has been known to even turn away Orthodox groups who for whatever reason wanted to become Uniates of some kind. This is precisely why "Uniatism" has been officially rejected by the Vatican.

In essence, the documents of Vatican II teach that Orthodox Churches, dogmatically differing Churches, are part of the same "body" that the RCC is. This is a novelty even in the RC tradition, which is why you have your various "Lefebvre" movements and the like.

OTOH, the Orthodox Church has not changed it's mind on this topic.

Seraphim

Evidence that he does? Alexi's resistance to the RCC has little to do with religious conviction, but with the power of the MP in Russia; it's well known that the Moscow Patriarchate has officially been involved in the ecumenical movement, among other problems. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if people from the MP have signed one of the many heretical "joint statements" on this subject.

Not RC sacraments in particular, but any that are celebrated outside of the Orthodox Church. This is not a "Catholicism" issue, but fundamentally, an ecclessiological one pertaining to Orthodox Christianity itself.

No, it is Orthodox teaching; I don't think my sentimental nature would ever have desired or concocted such "hard sayings". As it is, I have family and friends firmly entrenched in non-Orthodox religions and "Christianities" - these words of the Fathers and sacred Canons give me no pleasure or peace of mind in their regard.

Yet, unless they've imbibed heresy (which is very likely, due to the scandal ecumenism has caused, and the confusion it's caused in most of "world Orthodoxy"), their reception of such converts is "economic" - that is to say, with the understanding that by coming to Orthodoxy, their previous "baptism" is being validated and made Life bearing. You're still refusing to pay heed to the Orthodox understanding of receiving converts via "economy" - such reception does not require any acknowledgement of the "validity" of RC, Protestant, or whatever "baptisms."

If you want to persist in misconstruing the practice of economy (which, btw., is what the Council of Arles is talking about - otherwise, the laying on of hands makes little sense) in Orthodox Christianity, that is your perogative - but if so, do not persist in the pretense of trying to engage Orthodoxy "as it is" (nor bother speaking to me any further, since I am not here to debate sophistries.)

Since the subject cannot be avoided, I may as well be frank with you on this - it's the opinion of some of the greatest confessors of the modern age (the Catacomb Saints of Russia, the many zealot confessors of Greece persecuted by the Greek State and the EP, the late Bl. Fr. Seraphim of Platina, and the newly glorified St.Philaret), that we are living through perhaps the worst dogmatic crisis the Orthodox world has ever seen. In short, it is probably quite easy to find an "Orthodox" bishop or priest who will support practically anything.

This is the poison of the wolves in our midst - they've given fodder to RC vultures to pick our flocks, by pointing to the scandal they've created. It's lamentable, but the above line of questioning (I don't blame you for it, you didn't cause this problem in our midst, obviously) shows the damage they've done.

The position of the Holy Scriptures, Fathers, and Canons is that the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit is a phenomena distinct to the Church - how could it be otherwise? For if it existed elsewhere, that'd be "the Church" too!

However, the problem is that there are anathemas on the books, that have long attained a "pan-Orthodox"/Oecumenical (the true ecumenism) nature, condemning the various errors in doctrine and praxis that have come to be accepted by the Pope and those who submit to him. Thus, there is no question from an Orthodox p.o.v., that Catholicism represents a different religion from Orthodoxy, and it's quite obvious that there is no communion between the RCC and the Orthodox Church.

Given this, it's not a difficult question; the problem is not the clarity of the Orthodox teaching, but the deliberate muddying of these waters by ecumenistic "Orthodox".

It's not "hopeless confusion" because we still believe in the existance of "objective truth", and the grace of the Holy Spirit to lead contrite hearts towards it. As Bl.Justin of Serbia (a modern Orthodox confessor who broke communion with the Serbian Patriarch precisely because of his ecumenistic entanglements) observed, Catholicism substitutes humanistic certainties for the grace of Christ. Thus, instead of bold confidence in the "Living Christ", Who really is the Head of the Church, they assert a "visible head" (not of divine origin, but human creation); in this, there is at the very least a latent agnosticism, if not practical atheism, involved here.

Thus, while it's quite evident that the Fathers understood the "power" of Oecumenical Councils to be found in the gathering of Bishops and the guidance of the Holy Spirit Who would descend upon such a gathering, Catholicism has to create a legalistic certainty that ultimatly rests authority not in God, but a man. Thus, the RCC effectively teaches that Ecumenical Councils are not what the Fathers understood them to be, but rather extensions of the Papal office (basically, just a consultation to the Pope, so he can round-aboutly issue an "ex cathedra" statement.)

If you want to know the true Faith, it's not a terribly esoteric excercise - this is precisely why the heretics of old were so blameworthy. If the truth were really this esoteric (even keeping in mind the workings of grace!) then all ecclessiastical condemnations of heresy are puffs of smoke, since no one would fall under them.

Seraphim

http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ve110771.htm

Here is a scholarly document on this problem:
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html
and a letter from Bishop Tihkon: http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html

Here is a nice passage from the latter:

Well, I'll give you one thing, Seraphim. You're consistent. And you're certainly honest and frank.

"RC vultures" -- I love that. Can't help wondering what sort of brou-ha-ha would erupt on this board if we Catholics referred to EOs who steal Catholic sheep as "EO vultures."

I give you credit (big time!) for admitting that there's a dogmatic crisis in pan-Orthodoxy. Many of my Internet Orthodox buds seem unwilling to concede that there are any problems in the Orthodox world at all. (And then they accuse us of triumphalism -- sheesh!)

But ISTM you still haven't answered my central question. I asked how you know that you're right whereas most of the Orthodox world is wrong. You deplored most of the Orthodox world as "ecumenistic" and stated that this was serious error. But you didn't show me how you know for sure that You're Right and They're Wrong.

Doesn't it take a certain amount of hubris -- not to mention chutzpah -- to assert that most Orthodox hierarchs -- the majority -- are wrong whereas you're right?

Blessings in the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Fatima,

ZT

"Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia." -- St. Ambrose, 4th century

OK, here's another question for those who claim that the Grace of Christ does not exist outside the Orthodox communion:

We have wonderful Pentecostal neighbors. They would do anything for the folks hereabouts. They are loving, caring people. They also love the Lord Jesus fervently. I don't agree with their theology, obviously; I think they are in error on some key points. But I recognize that they are Chalcedonian Trinitarian Christians...and as such, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Well, recently the wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. Biopsies showed the cancer. After being "prayed over" by her church community, she went in for another biopsy as a prelude to surgery. The cancer was completely gone -- without a trace. The doctors cannot explain it.

OK. If those outside the Orthodox communion do not have the grace of Christ, then how was this woman cured? By the devil? (Be careful about that one, my friends--remember what Jesus said about those who attribute His work to Beezlebub!)

Eagerly awaiting your answer

ZT

P.S. djs -- The RCC says the Orthodox are our "sister churches" in potentia, not in full reality. Y'all are sisters who've left the family -- but we'll take you back anytime. We'll even bend over backward to accommodate you.

Djs,

Which is definately an essential change in approach to this subject. According to Trent, "confessional faith" (understood as Catholicism) is necessary for salvation. This is why, previous to Trent, the RC Doctor Thomas Aquinas taught in his Summa Theologica that while there are "valid" sacraments outside of the Pope's communion, they do not benefit their users (for they lack this faith.) There are some delicacies to that appraisal that pre-Vatican II Popes had picked up on, but in essence that stands in contradiction to the acceptance, in total, that the modern Vatican has taken towards the fruitfulness of Orthodox Mysteries.

What is equally interesting, is that the RCC is stating unequivocally that Orthodox confessions are fully valid. This is interesting, since according to traditional RC teaching, "confession" is a sacrament which not only requires a "valid priest", but also for that priest to have proper juristictional authority over the one who is confessing before him. The only conclusions I can draw from this assessment are...

a) The Pope is ignoring the RCC's teaching on Papal juristiction (which is understood to filter down through the episcopate, who in turn gives faculties to their diocesan priests to hear confessions)

b) The Pope has tacitly "granted" juristiction to the Orthodox Church, not only over their own flocks, but according to the new ecumenical norms, to even hear the confessions of RC's if it's for their "spiritual benefit" (as found in the 1983 code of canon law)?

If it's (b) (which I suspect, since that's the one thing that has always remained substantially in tact with the RCC no matter what - the Pope's authority), then essentially the Vatican has truly recognized the Orthodox Churches as "sister churches" in the full sense, with the qualification that there is simply a minor "interuption in relations" (lack of full communion, whatever this means) between them and the Vatican.

Given that this is the case, it's quite clear that the RCC at least officially regards the salvation of Orthodox Christians, as Orthodox Christians, a non-issue. However, there is a duplicity involved in this, since the RCC still contains all sorts of people trying to "convert" Orthodox Christians (in America alone there are lots of apostolates like this - "Catholic Answers" comes to mind, along with several well known "apologetical" authors.)

This is why many Orthodox skeptically remark (and rightly so) that what really matters to the RCC, above all, is adminstrative unity...which basically means, whether anyone cares to admit it or not, "submission to the Holy See." That the Church's unity can be boiled down to so secondary an issue, is one of the big problems Orthodox have always had with Catholicism - excercises of authority and political unity first, the true Faith and it's content second. Very troubling, since it is the latter which is salvific, not the former.

At best, a misleading statement, but not a surprising one since ecumenists tend to speak in ways which will technically (if strained) please everyone.

For example, the above can be understood in a heretical manner, so as to say that Orthodoxy has "always recognized" the RCC as a grace filled (essentially Orthodox) institution - which it's not, particularly not the latter (which the former depends upon), since there are several dogmatical and praxis errors which have been condemned by the Orthodox Church.

However, if one wants to strain on gnats, the above could also be understood to mean simply the recognition that the "valid forms" (by in large) still essentially remain in Roman Catholicism (though arguably the Mass is problematic, since it lacks the proper epiklesis that it once had, but was dropped in the time leading up to the schism - though I know others would argue the traditional RC Mass does have an implicit, "ascending epiklesis"). As such, these forms can be corrected, by simply receiving converts via economy. Thus, the vessels are "valid", but the content is of the Church.

And that's acceptable. It has been, for the most part, the Slavic practice. At varying times, it was also the Greek practice. However, this leniency is highly dependent upon the perceived needs of the time. This is why "traditonal" Orthodox, in our confused age, insist on reception by Baptism. Even the Jerusalem Patriarchate (which for it's own reasons keeps communion with some, to put it nicely, very comprimised figures) insists on this practice, as do the monastic communities on Mt.Athos.

Again, a vaguely stated remark, and probably intentionally so (since the MP itself, for all of it's lapses, still has in Russia proper plenty of priests and monastics who are horrified at ecumenism), to placate those who would react badly to a more openly heterodox statement.

The formal laying on of hands in succession, historically and forensically, exists in the RCC. I don't doubt that. What is left out of this statement, however, is the fact that while those forms may exist, they exist as a branch cut off from the life giving sap of it's parent tree.

If this branch was not in fact severed, that would be tantamount to saying there is no real schism between the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, and the RCC. That is sheer fantasy, but it what heretical ecumenists (the heresy of ecumenism having been anathematized by ROCOR, an anathema accepted by all of the Old Calendarist Churches) often imply, or when they think no one is looking who'd object, outright say.

This is very poorly stated. What was recognized is that all of the proper external qualities of the Priesthood and Apostolic Succession existed with the Uniates so received. Because those forms were there, there was no absolute need to impose them. However, they received the grace of the Holy Mother Church, upon conversion.

It is precisely out of pastoral consideration (to avoid unnecessarily disrupting the feelings of the flocks being received, and creating scandal in their midst) that such economy exists at all. The Church of Christ is a hospital for sinners, thus doesn't expect them to have the firmness right off the bat that She hopes they'll grow into with maturity.

Seraphim