Recognition of Catholic and Protestant Baptism?

[stanley123]

Oftentimes we hear that there are no Holy Mysteries or Sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church. And we have read here where the Orthodox do not recognise the Catholic Baptism. However, what can be said about the following declaration?
"For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms normatively performed according to the prescribed form in the following denominations and churches: (a.) Anglican Catholic (b.) Anglican Communion (Church of England, Episcopal, etc.) (c.) Assembly of God (d.) Baptist (e.) Church of the Brethren (f.) Lutheran (g.) Methodist (h.) Moravians (i.) Non-Chalcedonian and Monophysite Churches (j.) Old Catholic (Polish National Catholic Church, Church of Utrecht, Liberal Catholic Church, etc.) (k.) Presbyterian (l.) Roman Catholic (m.) United Church of Christ.

This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."
According to this, it looks like the Catholic baptism,( including baptism by sprinkling ?),  is fully recognised, albeit by extreme oikonomia. 
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm

 

[Irish Hermit]

If there were a recognition here of Roman Catholic baptism in and of itself and not by "extreme Oikonomia" then many of the Greek bishops and priests would need to be deposed since it is not uncommon for them to baptize Roman Catholics.    The canons require the deposition of clergy who perform second baptisms.

Our new Metropolitan in New Zealand Metropolitan Amphilochios has been undertaking quite a lot of missionery work in the the years he has been here and he baptizes Roman Catholics every time.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Amphilochios_%28Tsoukos%29_of_New_Zealand

 

[deusveritasest]

I don't know that that necessarily means that they are recognized as having been efficacious, or if it just means that they are recognized as having valid form that can be "completed by Chrismation".

 

[JLatimer]

They are not

recognized as having been efficacious

they are recognized as having valid form that can be "completed by Chrismation".

hence, "extreme oikonomia".

This is old news.

However, I would add that the idea that it is somehow oikonomical to confuse the heterodox (this post is exhibit A of the confusion) and to scandalize the faithful (exhibit B: the many posts on here where people received by chrismation only complain of nagging feelings of illegitimacy and unworthiness) is rather suspect. Pastorally, why is it a good call to deny Orthodox baptism to those who desire it where such a baptism could easily be performed?

 

[stanley123]

Right. This is the message from the posters on this forum: Catholic Baptism is not recognised.
But if that is true, then what does this mean:
""For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms..."
"This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."?
So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is this declaration accepted or not by all Orthodox bishops and have they issued a statement on it?And do the Orthodox here on this forum accept this declaration 100% or not?

 

[JLatimer]

Right. This is the message from the posters on this forum: Catholic Baptism is not recognised.
But if that is true, then what does this mean:
""For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms..."
"This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."?
So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is this declaration accepted or not by all Orthodox bishops and have they issued a statement on it?And do the Orthodox here on this forum accept this declaration 100% or not?

Again you are misinterpreting the declaration. Please see above where I interpreted it for you. The declaration in no way states that heterodox baptism is a Graced Sacrament.

See also Irish Hermit's reductio above.

 

[Irish Hermit]

Dear Stan,

Here is the source of what you have provided:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm

What you have extracted is quite unenforceable since the canons of the holy Church of Constantinople mandate the baptism of Roman Catholics.  If we glance at the  Agreed Statement of  the American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue we see that the delegates are imploring Constantinople to annul the canons requiring reception by baptism.**  Constantinople has so far done nothing to annul them.  Therefore the Greek bishops and priests who choose not to use economy and not to chrismate are acting canonically by baptizing.


** See here

http://www.usccb.org/seia/agreed.shtml

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy"
An Agreed Statement
of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York
June 3, 1999

 

[Irish Hermit]

The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably this Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.

Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place.  And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter.  It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople.
-oOo-

Go here to read it.  Message 63

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28663.msg452828.html#msg452828

 

[elijahmaria]

Oftentimes we hear that there are no Holy Mysteries or Sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church. And we have read here where the Orthodox do not recognise the Catholic Baptism. However, what can be said about the following declaration?
"For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms normatively performed according to the prescribed form in the following denominations and churches: (a.) Anglican Catholic (b.) Anglican Communion (Church of England, Episcopal, etc.) (c.) Assembly of God (d.) Baptist (e.) Church of the Brethren (f.) Lutheran (g.) Methodist (h.) Moravians (i.) Non-Chalcedonian and Monophysite Churches (j.) Old Catholic (Polish National Catholic Church, Church of Utrecht, Liberal Catholic Church, etc.) (k.) Presbyterian (l.) Roman Catholic (m.) United Church of Christ.

This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."
According to this, it looks like the Catholic baptism,( including baptism by sprinkling ?),  is fully recognised, albeit by extreme oikonomia.   
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

Mary

 

[stanley123]

Dear Stan,

Here is the source of what you have provided:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm

What you have extracted is quite unenforceable since the canons of the holy Church of Constantinople mandate the baptism of Roman Catholics.  If we glance at the  Agreed Statement of  the American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue we see that the delegates are imploring Constantinople to annul the canons requiring reception by baptism.**  Constantinople has so far done nothing to annul them.  Therefore the Greek bishops and priests who choose not to use economy and not to chrismate are acting canonically by baptizing.


** See here

http://www.usccb.org/seia/agreed.shtml

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy"
An Agreed Statement
of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York
June 3, 1999

To sum up then, you reject this declaration as being against the canons of the holy Church of Constantinople.
And I suppose then that you would say that these bishops do not have the authority to change these canons?
Is there universal agreement on this and was there any later statement made clearing up the confusion of the statement that I had quoted?
Thanks.

 

[stanley123]

The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably this Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.

Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place.  And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter.  It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople.
-oOo-

Go here to read it.  Message 63

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28663.msg452828.html#msg452828

OK.
I don't deny that is your opinion on it. You have to realise that it is confusing and that it is not that clear to many of us because there are Orthodox people going around saying that this declaration
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm
is now in effect and has superseded all previous regulations on this issue. 

 

[Irish Hermit]

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!!  For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith.  They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

 

[Irish Hermit]

The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably this Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.

Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place.  And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter.  It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople.
-oOo-

Go here to read it.  Message 63

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28663.msg452828.html#msg452828

OK.
I don't deny that is your opinion on it. You have to realise that it is confusing and that it is not that clear to many of us because there are Orthodox people going around saying that this declaration
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm
is now in effect and has superseded all previous regulations on this issue. 

I realise that itr can be confusing. 

I don't see any official status claimed for the article you quote? There is not even a footnote referring to anything official.

Certainly no Synod can mandate that "extreme Oikonomia" become the rule.  By definition economia is simply that - economia.

And as I say, our Greek Metropolitan will do nothing except receive Roman Catholic converts by baptism. 

The confusion can be allayed once a person has grasped the rather tricky concept of "economia." 

 

[stanley123]

I don't see any official status claimed for the article you quote? There is not even a footnote referring to anything official. 

For an average Joe the Plumber who is just reading this declaration it seems like it would be official because it says:
"the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined ...."
So is it true that such a determination by the Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople would not be official in any way?

 

[JLatimer]

Stanley, what are you trying to prove here?

That the Orthodox Church accepts the existence of True Grace-filled Sacraments outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church? It doesn't.

RC baptism (and apparently Church of the Brethren baptism, for that matter) are accepted as having a valid Trinitarian form, that the Church can, through extreme economy, 'retroactively' fill with Grace, fulfilling in the Holy Spirit that which beforehand lacked efficacy.

Please remember, though, that economy is precisely that: economy. It is not the 'norm', nor is this declaration some sort of doctrinal statement on the Mysteries. How could it be, when it speaks of recognizing the baptisms of denominations like the Assemblies of God, who don't even believe in the existence of Sacraments?!?

 

[Irish Hermit]

I don't see any official status claimed for the article you quote? There is not even a footnote referring to anything official. 

For an average Joe the Plumber who is just reading this declaration it seems like it would be official because it says:
"the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined ...."
So is it true that such a determination by the Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople would not be official in any way?

The average Joe Bloggs would like to see 1) the official statement of the American Greek Bishops, and 2) the Constantinople statement which "concurs" with it.

We note that some of what is said is an out and out fib - "This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate." 

In the States, the Serbian Church will usually baptize Roman Catholics and the other denominations mentioned, and so will the parishes and monasteries of the Jerusalem Patriarchate in the States, and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will nearly always baptize.  Porkies like this call the article into question.

The matter of the reception of converts from other Christian groups is simply unsettled and it is unreal for an article such as this to make out that there is one united practice for all the Orthodox Churches.  There just isn't.

 

[stanley123]

Stanley, what are you trying to prove here?

That the Orthodox Church accepts the existence of True Grace-filled Sacraments outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church? It doesn't.

RC baptism (and apparently Church of the Brethren baptism, for that matter) are accepted as having a valid Trinitarian form, that the Church can, through extreme economy, 'retroactively' fill with Grace, fulfilling in the Holy Spirit that which beforehand lacked efficacy.

Please remember, though, that economy is precisely that: economy. It is not the 'norm', nor is this declaration some sort of doctrinal statement on the Mysteries. How could it be, when it speaks of recognizing the baptisms of denominations like the Assemblies if God, who don't even believe of Sacraments?!?

This is really quite asinine on your part to make such an unwarranted ad hominem assumption that I am attempting to prove something.

 

[JLatimer]

Stanley, what are you trying to prove here?

That the Orthodox Church accepts the existence of True Grace-filled Sacraments outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church? It doesn't.

RC baptism (and apparently Church of the Brethren baptism, for that matter) are accepted as having a valid Trinitarian form, that the Church can, through extreme economy, 'retroactively' fill with Grace, fulfilling in the Holy Spirit that which beforehand lacked efficacy.

Please remember, though, that economy is precisely that: economy. It is not the 'norm', nor is this declaration some sort of doctrinal statement on the Mysteries. How could it be, when it speaks of recognizing the baptisms of denominations like the Assemblies if God, who don't even believe of Sacraments?!?

This is really quite asinine on your part to make such an unwarranted ad hominem assumption that I am attempting to prove something.

  :laugh:

 

[stanley123]

We note that some of what is said is an out and out fib - "This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate." 

So I think that people should be able to understand the confusion of Joe the Plumber when he reads this declaration which appears on the site of the Orthodox Research Institute and is signed at the bottom as a Publication of the Diocese of Denver
Greek Orthodox Church of America
December 1997

 

[stanley123]

Stanley, what are you trying to prove here?

That the Orthodox Church accepts the existence of True Grace-filled Sacraments outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church? It doesn't.

RC baptism (and apparently Church of the Brethren baptism, for that matter) are accepted as having a valid Trinitarian form, that the Church can, through extreme economy, 'retroactively' fill with Grace, fulfilling in the Holy Spirit that which beforehand lacked efficacy.

Please remember, though, that economy is precisely that: economy. It is not the 'norm', nor is this declaration some sort of doctrinal statement on the Mysteries. How could it be, when it speaks of recognizing the baptisms of denominations like the Assemblies if God, who don't even believe of Sacraments?!?

This is really quite asinine on your part to make such an unwarranted ad hominem assumption that I am attempting to prove something.

  :laugh:

I am glad that you enjoyed the comment.
No. There is a problem with this declaration and it is not that easy at times to see what is going on, when there are people out there claiming different interpretations.

 

[JLatimer]

I am glad that you enjoyed the comment.
No. There is a problem with this declaration and it is not that easy at times to see what is going on, when there are people out there claiming different interpretations.

Exactly my point about the foolishness of confusing the heterodox with such declarations. All I was trying to say about interpreting it is that despite it's general stupidity, this declaration in no way actually teaches the efficacy of heterodox sacraments.

 

[Irish Hermit]

I thought that it would be useful to see the view of a Greek Orthodox priest, Fr George... just so you don't have the perception that I (and JLatimer) am a fanatical Serb or Russian.

"...in the eyes of the Church no sacrament occurs outside of the boundaries of the Church..."

This is message 31 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10020.msg137174.html#msg137174

 

[JLatimer]

...which of course flows naturally and logically from the Orthodox understanding of what Sacraments in fact are.

Yesterday's epistle is actually quite relevant:

Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

 

[Irish Hermit]

We note that some of what is said is an out and out fib - "This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate." 

So I think that people should be able to understand the confusion of Joe the Plumber when he reads this declaration which appears on the site of the Orthodox Research Institute and is signed at the bottom as a Publication of the Diocese of Denver
Greek Orthodox Church of America
December 1997

Yes, the confusion is very understandable.  The statement is silly and runs counter to the real situation with baptizing converts.  To claim that all bishops agree with what has been stated is really a gross deception. Not even all the bishops of Constaninople agree, let alone other non-Greek bishops. 

 

[deusveritasest]

However, I would add that the idea that it is somehow oikonomical to confuse the heterodox (this post is exhibit A of the confusion) and to scandalize the faithful (exhibit B: the many posts on here where people received by chrismation only complain of nagging feelings of illegitimacy and unworthiness) is rather suspect. Pastorally, why is it a good call to deny Orthodox baptism to those who desire it where such a baptism could easily be performed?

I agree with your sentiment.

 

[deusveritasest]

Right. This is the message from the posters on this forum: Catholic Baptism is not recognised.

No, the baptisms of Old Rome are not recognized as efficacious, generally speaking.

But if that is true, then what does this mean:
""For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms..."
"This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."?

We already told you. It means that they are recognized as having valid form and that Chrismation is capable of completing the efficacy of them and that the jurisdiction is choosing to do so.

So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church?

No longer being of the Byzantine communion, this question doesn't really apply to me.

 

[LBK]

From my several decades of observation of both Russian and Greek practice:

1. When it comes to marriage, pious Roman Catholics, traditional Anglicans and traditional Lutherans are allowed to marry Orthodox spouses without having to convert to Orthodoxy.

2. All Roman Catholics, traditional Anglicans and traditional Lutherans I have known (either by direct witness, including my being a Godparent, or by reputable report) were chrismated.

3. All others, including liberal Anglicans, liberal Lutherans, and any other "christian" denomination, as well as non-Christians, were obliged to be baptised using the full service.

 

[Irish Hermit]

No longer being of the Byzantine communion, this question doesn't really apply to me.

As I understand your perception of your present spiritual situation it is altogether unique.  You do not believe you have received baptism (I suppose that makes you an unbaptized pagan enquiring into Christianity.)  Nor have you ever had the experience of receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour since such is not found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  As I say, it is a unique situation you inhabit and a unique way of perceiving your spiritual state.  I pray that you worrisome pagan state will be resolved soon.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

"So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church?"

No, I would not be in schism as I am not under the EP. The Ecumenical Patriarchate can make its own determination that will only affect it (including its eparchies such as the Greek Archdiocese). As I am not under their jurisdiction nor are my Bishops it doesn't affect us. If your asking whether the EP receives someone via Chrismation whether everyone one else will accept them as being in the Orthodox Church than yes no one questions the efficacy of the Chrismation and its ability to perfect heterodox baptism. However, it is by economia and not everyone believes that is the best way of doing it. If the heterdox baptism is void of grace than I think it makes sense to baptize those that wish to enter the Church. Again I think Father Ambrose was correct when he stated that it will be difficult to grasp until one understands economia and akrivia.

 

[elijahmaria]

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!!   For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith.  They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

It still happens that way and the eastern Catholics who do it that way go blissfully back and forth between Catholic and Orthodox Churches with their families.  When they are in LA they go to their Orthodox parish and when they come here they attend their old baptismal Catholic parish, for example.

Some folks already have the best of both worlds and nobody complains...nobody gets excited...life just goes on as it should...I think.

Mary

 

[Irish Hermit]

"So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church?"

I would say that every single bishop in the world accepts that declaration.  Every single one.  These baptisms may be recognised "by extreme Oikonomia."

I cannon think of any bishop or any priest who would not agree with that.  I certainly agree with it.  I think that every priest I know agrees with it.



So - we all agree with the statement.  So, where's the catch?

The catch is if there is an unspoken corollary which mandates that "extreme Oikonomia" must be the rule and it is forbidden to baptize converts.  But if no such prohibition is intended against baptizing converts then the statement is just fine as it stands, 100% Orthodox.

 

[Irish Hermit]

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!!  For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith.  They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

It still happens that way and the eastern Catholics who do it that way go blissfully back and forth between Catholic and Orthodox Churches with their families.  When they are in LA they go to their Orthodox parish and when they come here they attend their old baptismal Catholic parish, for example.

Some folks already have the best of both worlds and nobody complains...nobody gets excited...life just goes on as it should...I think.

Mary

As a matter of interest, have you experienced this personally in your walk as a Ruthenian Catholic?  How is it done?  Is it done openly, or furtively?  Have you, or the others you mention, referred this to the bishops or to their spiritual fathers?

 

[stanley123]

"So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church?"

I would say that every single bishop in the world accepts that declaration.   Every single one.  These baptisms may be recognised "by extreme Oikonomia."

I cannon think of any bishop or any priest who would not agree with that.  I certainly agree with it.  I think that every priest I know agrees with it.



So - we all agree with the statement.  So, where's the catch?

The catch is if there is an unspoken corollary which mandates that "extreme Oikonomia" must be the rule and it is forbidden to baptize converts.   But if no such prohibition is intended against baptizing converts then the statement is just fine as it stands, 100% Orthodox.

What the declaration implies is becoming somewhat clearer to Joe the Plumber now.

 

[elijahmaria]

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!!   For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith.  They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

It still happens that way and the eastern Catholics who do it that way go blissfully back and forth between Catholic and Orthodox Churches with their families.   When they are in LA they go to their Orthodox parish and when they come here they attend their old baptismal Catholic parish, for example.

Some folks already have the best of both worlds and nobody complains...nobody gets excited...life just goes on as it should...I think.

Mary

As a matter of interest, have you experienced this personally in your walk as a Ruthenian Catholic?  How is it done?  Is it done openly, or furtively?   Have you, or the others you mention, referred this to the bishops or to their spiritual fathers?

Quite openly.  There is no need to tell anyone.  It is simply accepted as the way of things.  It is a non-issue except with respect to the salvation of souls and that is not in the public domain.

The attitude is that it happens in other parts of the world so it happens here.  There's an underlying attitude that is expressed by the thinking that once the muddle gets straightened out and there's resumed communion then they are already ahead of the game.  And that attitude exists on both sides, although I know more Catholic pastors who get a little miffed by it, simply because they are not fond of Orthodoxy.

Not everyone is as convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church of Heresies, a mere RCRO.  But there are strong disincentives to talking about it all too openly...if you know what I mean.  Do other bishops know?  I expect so.  I suspect so. 

I don't participate because the duplicity on both sides annoys me.  I think we should simply resume communion and resolve our differences since most of them are highly resolvable.

M.

 

[deusveritasest]

No longer being of the Byzantine communion, this question doesn't really apply to me.

As I understand your perception of your present spiritual situation it is altogether unique.   You do not believe you have received baptism (I suppose that makes you an unbaptized pagan enquiring into Christianity.)  Nor have you ever had the experience of receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour since such is not found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  As I say, it is a unique situation you inhabit and a unique way of perceiving your spiritual state.  I pray that you worrisome pagan state will be resolved soon.

Given that I view the Byzantine tradition as lacking loyal and authentic orthodox doctrinal continuity, I think it would be fair to apply the same reasoning for that background as we are in this thread for the Romans. No, I did not receive an efficacious Baptism or Chrismation or Communion or Confession (the few times in a year that I did that).


Because of my issues with the Agreed Statements, it is taking significantly longer than I had hoped.

 

[deusveritasest]

I think at the core of this is the issue of the differing perspectives on validity and efficacy between the Christian West and East. The West, via the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, has long assumed that an ordinance performed with the valid form and intention of a Christian Sacrament logically is an efficacious Christian Sacrament. On the other hand, the Christian East has maintained the tradition that valid form and intention is not all that it takes to confect an efficacious Christian Sacrament, but also doctrinal orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I just recently had to explain to two Byzantines the other day that just because their church recognizes heterodox baptisms as valid and doesn't perform them again doesn't mean that they recognize them as having been efficacious.

 

[JLatimer]

I think at the core of this is the issue of the differing perspectives on validity and efficacy between the Christian West and East. The West, via the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, has long assumed that an ordinance performed with the valid form and intention of a Christian Sacrament logically is an efficacious Christian Sacrament. On the other hand, the Christian East has maintained the tradition that valid form and intention is not all that it takes to confect an efficacious Christian Sacrament, but also doctrinal orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I just recently had to explain to two Byzantines the other day that just because their church recognizes heterodox baptisms as valid and doesn't perform them again doesn't mean that they recognize them as having been efficacious.

Not even doctrinal orthodoxy is enough. As your username attests, God is Truth. No Sacrament is "efficacious", logically speaking, outside of the Theanthropic reality which is His Body, the Church. I quoted on another thread today, and I will quote again: "One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out." It is that blood and water, that flows from the Body of Christ, which washes us and saves us, and no other.

 

[JLatimer]

But tell me, if you don't mind me asking, since I am not altogether familiar with your views, what precisely is your doctrinal quibble with those in communion with Constantinople?

 

[deusveritasest]

I think at the core of this is the issue of the differing perspectives on validity and efficacy between the Christian West and East. The West, via the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, has long assumed that an ordinance performed with the valid form and intention of a Christian Sacrament logically is an efficacious Christian Sacrament. On the other hand, the Christian East has maintained the tradition that valid form and intention is not all that it takes to confect an efficacious Christian Sacrament, but also doctrinal orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I just recently had to explain to two Byzantines the other day that just because their church recognizes heterodox baptisms as valid and doesn't perform them again doesn't mean that they recognize them as having been efficacious.

Not even doctrinal orthodoxy is enough. As your username attests, God is Truth. No Sacrament is "efficacious", logically speaking, outside of the Theanthropic reality which is His Body, the Church. I quoted on another thread today, and I will quote again: "One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out." It is that blood and water, that flows from the Body of Christ, which washes us and saves us, and no other.

I agree. Visible unity as the Body of Christ is also necessary. Doctrinal orthodoxy is none the less a requisite, however, and at that a requisite that the West does not recognize.

 

[deusveritasest]

But tell me, if you don't mind me asking, since I am not altogether familiar with your views, what precisely is your doctrinal quibble with those in communion with Constantinople?

For the most part, their allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon.