From an interesting post by Hieromonk Maximos over at the Anastasis Dialogue:
Why do some ultra-traditionalist Orthodox re-baptize Catholic converts to Orthodoxy? Because, in the name of Holy Tradition, they are heirs to the innovative notions of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain in the 18th century … In trying to synthesize this exclusivist ecclesiology with the notion of “oikonomia” a la St. Basil, and which had guided Orthodox praxis for centuries, St. Nicodemus had to invent a whole new way of understanding that notion as it applied to the sacraments. In effect, he invested Orthodox bishops with the power to determine by an exercise of sheer authority whether a sacrament was valid or not. Thus the practice before 1755 of admitting Catholics to Orthodoxy without baptism could be explained as an “economic” exercise of episcopal authority, rather than (as it had been for centuries) as flowing from the actual validity of the Catholic baptism.
And from one of the post’s comments:
If it is true, as some Orthodox believe, that Catholic baptisms are invalid, then nothing should be able to change that except a valid baptism — not even the application of episcopal “oikonomia”, lest we say that a bishop can by his decree actually make a person that which he/she is not, i.e. a Christian baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if Catholic baptisms are valid, then the Orthodox must no longer regard Western Christians as “other”, but as co-heirs to the life in Christ–brothers and sisters from they must not suffer themselves to be alienated. What then?
Last night after reading this and the linked web post, I wrote a rather long (five pages in MS Word) response. But I decided to sit on it overnight and come back to this post today. I am glad I did. My reply was way too long and made more of this than it frankly deserves.
What this really boils down to is that most Roman Catholics (and a disturbingly large number of Orthodox) don’t seem to grasp why we baptize converts. Yes, it is true we hold to the ancient teaching that there are no Mysteries outside The Church. But when we receive a convert through baptism it is not because their previous baptism was “invalid.” I don’t really even care for that term although I have used it occasionally myself. It is misleading. In Orthodoxy we have a definite understanding of what baptism is supposed to do as a sacrament. And when we speak of the Mysteries we do not typically use the word “valid.” They are either with grace or without. This refers only to the unique sacramental grace that is conferred by the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Mysteries. It does not preclude any other workings or divine benefit that God may choose too impart in His infinite mercy.
The question then comes down to the boundaries of The Church. Fr. Florovsky once famously observed that while “we know where The Church is we do not know with certainty where it is not.” Given our creedal profession of “one baptism” this places us in a bind. On the one hand we believe in the absolute necessity of baptism for those entering The Church, and on the other we do not know with certainty what may have transpired during their non-Orthodox baptism. Our solution is, as is often the case within Orthodoxy, a bit sloppy and your mileage may vary (this could be the motto of Orthodox ecclesiology) depending on jurisdiction, diocese and even in some cases parishes.
Most Orthodox accept that some heterodox baptisms are “close enough” if they use water, the Trinitarian Formula, and have a sacramental intent that roughly corresponds to that of The Church. There is a widely accepted theologumen to the effect that Holy Chrismation can repair that which was moderately defective and fill with grace those Mysteries which may have been lacking that special sacramental grace that comes from an Orthodox baptism. This conforms with the historic practice of The Church. The question typically boils down to “where do we draw the line?” Some Roman Catholics are a bit put out because some Orthodox (a distinct minority) are not willing to give the “close enough” benefit of the doubt to their sacraments. What they, and some Orthodox who tend to speak a bit too dogmatically on this subject, need to remember is that when we baptize a convert who has already undergone some form of baptism we are not condemning that baptism as “invalid” (that word again). What we are saying is that WE DO NOT KNOW. And therefore with an abundance of humility we are erring on the side of caution and baptizing the convert.
Roman Catholics used to do this all the time themselves. The main difference is that they tended to baptize sub conditionale. This practice however is extremely rare in Orthodoxy. We are just not that legalistic. In Orthodoxy we tend to believe that God knows whether or not someone has been baptized. He also understands that we are sometimes unable to know with certainty what has transpired outside of The Church. He further knows that when we baptize a convert we are not attempting to perform a sacrament twice that can only be done once. In short when we baptize a convert that we know has already undergone some sort of baptism outside of what we understand to be The Church we are doing so conditionally even if the legal formula is not spoken.
Having said all of the above of course there are cases where the doubt is somewhat less present than in others. I am on record (and I stand by this opinion) that the time has come to start baptizing most converts from Protestant sects. My reason for this is that it is almost impossible in the present day to know with any degree of certainty what is transpiring even in what used to be understood as the “confessional” Protestant churches. One need only look at what is going on in the Episcopal Church and some of the other “mainline” churches to realize how far they have strayed. There is no real standard that they are anchored to anymore. For precisely the opposite reasons I am in favor of receiving converts from Rome and the Non-Chalcedonian churches without going through another baptism unless there is some extenuating circumstance. But we still need to remember some humility absent a formal declaration by an oecumenical council. I sometimes catch myself being a bit too dogmatic in my judgments about certain other confessions, and the grace of their mysteries (or lack thereof).
The bottom line is that it’s up to the bishop. If you want to be Orthodox and the bishop says you need to be baptized then that’s what needs to happen. God knows the real score and is not holding anyone’s feet to the fire as long as all is done in humility.
ICXC
John
John,
What exactly do you mean by “legalistic”? This is one of these nasty words commonly thrown at Catholics by both Protestants and Orthodox, but I’m not sure what it means. Is concern for the proper administration of a sacrament, and the avoidance of the sacrilege of repeating an unrepeatable sacrament, “legalistic”?
Legalistic means that the Roman Church is top heavy with rules. I am a former Catholic and I have enormous respect for many aspects of the Latin Church. However IMO when you have an entire class of people trained as church lawyers, that to me is an indication that you might have gone a bit overboard on the rules. In this case the concern for the proper administration of the sacrament is respected by adhering to the canons of the church which specify baptisms to be performed by full triple immersion (unless that is for some practical reason impossible) and using the Trinitarian formula. I am not aware of any mention of the conditional formula in church canons. That is not to say that it is wrong to use the conditional formula. But it is a an add on that seems to suggest that God doesn’t know what you are intending to do.
I guess my question is why? And if it is really that important why is it not mentioned in the canons?
ICXC
John
Yes, I can understand how you might say that the Latin Church is “top heavy with rules.” (I could also, BTW, understand how one could say that about some flavors of Orthodoxy as well!).
But I was interested in your explanation of how conditional baptism specifically is “legalistic”. I don’t see that it’s any more legalistic than the policies of the various Orthodox jurisdictions on how to receive converts. The Greeks, the OCA, the Antiochians, etc. all have very detailed rules on this pastoral situation … are they being “legalistic” about it?
Furthermore, you offered two criticisms of the practice of conditional baptism (one historical/canonical, and the other theological), but I fail to see how these objections have anything to do with the original charge of “legalism.”
I actually don’t know any confessional churches including all of the various Orthodox jurisdictions that don’t have guidelines for receiving converts. My objection is not to procedures for receiving converts. Rather it is to the invention of a rule that has no practical or theological rational behind it. It seems to me to be a rule for its own sake. Unless of course you believe God does not know what we are intending to do when we baptize converts.
On a side note, it is perfectly fair to point out that Orthodoxy can be a bit heavy on rules too. However I would probably choose a different example than rules for receiving converts. Our fasting regulations are mind boggling to most non-Orthodox.
ICXC
John
John,
I’m just trying to coax out of you the reasons why you call the practice of conditional baptism “legalistic.” It’s a procedure which has arisen in the history of the Latin Church, just like the Orthodox Churches have developed various rules and methods of receiving converts over the centuries. I don’t see the Latin Church’s customary methods for receiving converts, including conditional baptism, as any more “legalistic” than the various Orthodox methods.
I’m quite taken aback at your claim that conditional baptism “has no practical or theological rational [sic] behind it” and that “it seems to be a rule for its own sake.” It’s hard for me to imagine that the Latin Church would have retained a practice for many centuries if it had no rhyme or reason behind it (remember, the Latin Church is also supposed to be hyper-rationalistic as well!).
I am not an expert in Latin sacramental theology or canon law, but I’m willing to stick my neck out and guess that the rationale behind the practice is based on two basic theological concerns (which, I think, Orthodoxy also shares, although they have worked it out differently in practice).
The first concern is, obviously, that members of the Church be properly baptized into Christ. The second concern is that Baptism, once properly administered, cannot not be repeated (and to attempt to do so knowingly or recklessly is sacrilegious).
It seems to me that conditional baptism is a practice that the Latin Church has introduced in order to respect both of these concerns in concrete situations where a convert’s baptism outside of the visible, physical limits of the Church likely happened but there is no way to be sure.
Is this legalistic scrupulosity? Perhaps, but I would never blame the Latin Church for being a little bit scrupulous about Baptism, which really is a matter of spiritual life and death.
From what I discovered during a recent debate on this topic, it seems that there were two practices that ran side by side legitimately in the Church: that of St Cyprian and St Firmillian, which required all heretics to be (re-)baptised and that led by Rome not requiring such baptism of those receiving a “suitable baptism” in heresy. The Ecumenical Councils (at least as followed in the East) went for a mixed approach of differentiating between various groups regarding (re-)baptism, although it defaulted to St Cyprian in requiring all heretics except those mentioned, to be (re-)baptised on entry to the Church. (cf. Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, although this Canon was not generally accepted in Rome because the Council was not following Rome’s position but a modification of St Cyprian’s.) St Basil also supports (re-)baptising heretics (cf his Canon on the matter) and he allows for economy in not doing so in exceptional cases without defining comprehensive boundaries to this economy. I understand St Nicodemos to be limiting the power of Bishops that could be taken from the undefined economy of St Basil as were also the Ecumenical Councils by defining the exceptions to general (re-)baptism. The charge of sheer authority could easily be taken the other way on those not (re-)baptising by those rejecting validity of Roman Catholic/heretical baptisms. Also, there is no clear custom of reception of Roman Catholics into the Orthodox Church earlier than 1755, let alone any consistent idea of validity. (Re-)baptisms of Latins (Roman Catholics) occurred earlier even before 1054 and certainly by 1215 (see Canon 4 of the Lateran Council), even if this may not have been a universal practice nevertheless there were doubts then as to the validity of Latin baptisms. It was not a new idea of the 18th Century; the so-called “exclusivist ecclesiology” can be found continually throughout the entire East-West dispute.
I think that any theology of baptism must account for both practices being legitimate, although not necessarily in every instance, and it may be equally correct to (re-)baptise those coming into the Church as it may be to accept them only with chrism. I think that this though is not always the case, so in some cases either method is acceptable, for converts from the same heresy at the same time, in other cases only one, or the other, may be acceptable depending on the circumstances. The solution of St Nicodemos allows for and helps direct these cases. I have not seen another solution that also allows for both practices, so whether or not St Nicodemos’s solution is “modern” or not, it seems to be the only way to understand the matter consistently and this tends to lend support to the matter being implicitly understood in a similar manner earlier. (A touch of doctrinal development perhaps.) I think that the main question is what is correct in the present circumstances, not whether heretical baptisms can be theoretically valid or not. There are some limits, even in Roman practice, to acceptable baptisms. These limits need to be examined and I think that they are the main cause of dispute between baptisers and non-(re-)baptisers.
Has anyone seen a better solution that allows for both practices to be legitimately followed in the Church at the same time for the same heretics and also helps determine the limits of when these practices may be so applied?
Perhaps I have failed to adequately express myself. The reason why I cited the sub conditionale formula as legalistic is because I see it as evidence of the broader tendency among the Latins towards a theological and disciplinary culture which emphasizes akria. The absence (or at least rare use) of the conditional in most Orthodox jurisdictions seems to be indicative of a culture more open to oikonomia. This is of course not a declaration that we don’t have our share of literalists. But I see many of them (like the radical Old Calendarists) as in many ways having become infected with one of the very things they so frequently decry in the Roman Church.
I would also note that even where we have extensive rules such as in the Book of Needs or in our discipline of fasting these are also understood in a much less legal form than the Roman Catholic Church. In most cases it is relatively easy to modify or set aside any of the rules for a good reason. This is frequently not the case in the RCC, where there are often precise rules governing exceptions to the rules laid out. And it must be said emphatically that we have nothing even remotely comparable to the Code of Canon Law!
While I am not averse to discussing my perception of the legalism prevalent in the RCC, I do find it interesting that you seemed to have latched onto that particular phrase while ignoring the meat of my post. Have you read the very excellent post by Archmadrite Ambrosius who discusses at great length the historical background to the differing methods by which converts are received? The essay can be found here… http://tinyurl.com/4ofvr
John,
I think I understand your position a little better now. I’m not sure that I entirely agree, but nonetheless, I thank you for making it a lot clearer to me.
Just to clarify, I “latched onto” your comment about conditional baptism being legalistic, and did not comment on the rest of your original post, only because this was the only point that I didn’t quite understand. That’s all.
CU,
Thanks for your questions. I hope I did not sound like I was being short with you. I am not always as clear as I would like when I am attempting to make points.
ICXC
John
John,
Like CU, I understand your position better after reading your subsequent posts. I also think that CU is right in that conditional baptism is practiced out of concern that the person be truly joined to Christ’s death and resurrection. Why not just baptize them instead, without the conditional formula? Not because God might not know what we’re up to otherwise, but rather to safeguard the belief that a person can only be baptized once. In other words, I don’t think the conditional formula is so much for God’s sake as it is for the candidate and for those who witness that person’s reception (who are rather likely to be confused about what the Catholic Church believes anyway, since they are most likely relatives and friends of the candidate).
I know that this might not sound right to you still, but can you at least give a more generous interpretation of conditional baptism as it is practiced in the West? And if the Roman Church is in fact “top heavy with rules” and “legalistic”, can we correct her in the spirit of Christian fraternity? Accusations will only go so far.
Your brother,
W.H.
I’m sorry, John / Ad Orientem, but I still see your depiction of Catholic praxis as a grossly inaccurate caricature. You say you were once Catholic. I have been a Catholic most of my life, and your stereotypes do not begin to fit my experience. Even my pre-VCII experience does not fit this caricature…and my post-VCII experience certainly doesn’t. What’s more, I bet that, if I consulted my Catholic friends, most if not all of them would read your word-portrait of Catholicism, scratch their heads, and say, “Huh??”
Such caricatures may serve certain polemical purposes but they do not serve the cause of truth. Just my two cents’ worth. Not meant offensively but rather as an attempt to set the record straight.
God bless,
Diane
I see many of them (like the radical Old Calendarists) as in many ways having become infected with one of the very things they so frequently decry in the Roman Church.
I bet you do.
John (#10),
No problem! Apologies if I wasn’t being fair in my characterizations of your position.
Re #11
Wei-Hsien Wan,
Your point is an interesting one that I concede not having thought much about. If that is indeed the primary motive than I can see a legitimate rational for the practice.
ICXC
John
Wei-Hsien Wan: Beautiful post! And John, very gracious concession. 🙂
I always find it interesting, when the Catholic West is being accused of legalism, to reflect that one of the most famous legal codes ever composed was the work of a Byzantine emperor. 😉
Diane,
Justinian’s Code was temporal law, not ecclesiastic.
That said, the term byzantine has acquired a certain meaning in our modern language for a reason 😉
ICXC
John
Justinian’s Code was temporal law, not ecclesiastic.
Well, as you yourself concede in the next sentence, this scarcely makes a difference. The Code was emblematic of the Eastern mindset, non?
Besides, I’m not sure there was always a rigid separation between “temporal” and “ecclesiastic” in the East. Know what I mean?
the term byzantine has acquired a certain meaning in our modern language for a reason
LOL–I was going to say something about that, but you beat me to it (and you put it much more pithily and wittily than I could have).
God bless 🙂
Diane
Justinian’s Code was temporal law, not ecclesiastic.
Sorry, I just noticed this.
Not to be nitpicky, but Justinian did in fact legislate for the Church. Book One of his Codex repetitiae praelectionis, and 34 of his famous Novellae, deal specifically with ecclesiastical affairs.
Remember also the Byzantine collections of canons and imperial laws dealing with ecclesiastical matters known as the “nomocanons”.
For the sake of the development in this discussion, I think it would be good for us distinguish law from legalism, since the latter is the idolization and mutilation of the former. Law in itself is not an evil thing, and I even doubt that the multiplicity of laws is also inherently evil. The tendency toward legalism is probably not so much inherently “Western” nor “Eastern”, as much as it is part of defective human nature. Eve, I believe, was the first to exaggerate the requirements of the law: “We must not even touch it….”
I say this because there tends to be an unspoken presupposition in East-West dialogues that law is the same thing as legalism, particularly in discussions about ecclesiology and redemption. (As my friend Fr. Maximos once pointed out, the Apostle Paul himself seems rather comfortable with legal terminology when writing about the latter.)
Part of the difficulty might be the way in which we conceive law. For the Hebrews, law was inseparable from the covenant, such that it was always connected to the idea of kinship. This is probably the notion of law that pervades the Testaments Old and New (abuses notwithstanding). Most of us today, however, think of law independently of the covenant and kinship. What we’re left with, often, is just standalone law–cold, impersonal, binding law. In the biblical milieu, I think, this is already the seed of legalism.
I am aware of at least two instances of folks who were conditionally rebaptized when it could not be established for a fact that they ever were baptized. Both Latin American immigrants to the US who had no living relatives, and no clear idea about where records of their baptism as an infant would have been found if it had in fact occured.
I am curious about how this would be handled in Orthodox churches…
I just have wrestled with this issue for almost 16 years now, and for the better part of that time I have dealt with apologists from the Orthodox and Protesant world rail against “legalism”.
I prefer the term “precision” and if you consider the very pressing importance (eastern and western) Christians gave to precise definitions and understandings of the nature of Christ and the very title we were to afford Mary in the first ecumenical councils…
Well it seems that well before Aquinas or “rationalism” there was a deep-seated need for an understanding of the precise nature of certain theological concepts.
More than one Orthodox author I have read has raised an eyebrow or expressed disenchantment with Roman certitude and persistence in defining and clarifying such concepts as “transubstantiaon”. Roman concepts of “validity” has been dismissed as “legalist” In the face of conflicting and intense debate on such issues, why should Catholics be any less precise than her forebearers were at Ephesus and Chalcedon?
In the reception of Roman clergy into the EO, there has been at least three different canonical realities. (1) Some Byzantines, (like the Johnstown Greek Catholics, the liquidated Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.) have been recieved into communion en masse perhaps with simple chrismation or an oath of allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch. (2) SOME Roman clergy who married post ordination were NOT recieved as priests or re-ordained because it was the perception of the hierach that the petitioned that there Roman orders were valid, and that it would be uncanonical for them to serve as Orthodox priests, having entered marriage after ordination. (3) Others have roundly ignored this idea and accepted and incardinated ex-non-Orthodox clergy who contracted marriage after ordination, recognizing the ordination as valid but not recognizing the post-ordination marriage as an impediment….(4) Some have been re-ordained (or in the eyes of some EO, ordained for the first time!) in the same mannner certain ex-Anglicans who have come to Rome have been. While it seems to be a minority opinion among what we recognize as mainstream EO (in the US) today, some pozit that the original Roman ordination was graceless. I believe this would be the likely view of the majority of “Old Calendar” Orthodox – some of whom are in communion with SOME national churches, some of whom are not.
From The Bitter Fruits of Disunity
While virtually every American Orthodox Christian has some story or other to relate how our divisions have wounded them personally and caused grief it is important I think to face something of a substantial enumeration of the sad fruits of our division. Our division manifests itself in many practical and pastoral ways:
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions receive persons from Latin and certain Protestant bodies into Holy Orthodoxy by baptism and chrismation, some by chrismation alone, and some merely by confession of faith.
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions receive Latin clergy converting to Holy Orthodoxy merely by vesting, while others ordain.
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions recognize all marriages performed outside Holy Orthodoxy as being real marriages (though certainly not sacramental) whether performed for an Orthodox or non-Orthodox, while others recognize no marriages performed outside Holy Orthodoxy whether performed for an Orthodox or a non-Orthodox. This results in someone being denied a fourth marriage in one jurisdiction while being permitted a marriage (and a first one at that!) in another jurisdiction; someone being denied ordination in one jurisdiction because of a previous marriage outside the Church, while being accepted as a candidate for ordination in another jurisdiction; a non-Orthodox married couple having to be married by the Church when they convert one jurisdiction, while in another they are received without a need for an Orthodox marriage service to be performed for them. In some jurisdictions “inter-faith” marriages mean those that are between an Orthodox and a non-Orthodox, while in other an “inter-faith” marriage means a marriage even between two Orthodox Christians from various jurisdictions.
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions bury suicides under certain circumstances, while others forbid the burial of suicides under all circumstances.
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions bury a person who was cremated with all funeral rites in the church temple, others permit only Trisagion Prayers of Mercy in the funeral home, some forbid any prayers anywhere for a person who was cremated.
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions recognize civil divorce as complete and sufficient for ecclesiastical purposes, while others do not recognize civil divorce at all and insist on Church Tribunals, while yet other deal with divorce in other ways.
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions penance a person when he/she is divorced (either by civil or Church court), while others penance a person only after he/she enters into a second or third marriage.
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions accept clergy suspended or even deposed by other Orthodox jurisdictions.
* Some Orthodox jurisdictions ignore bans of excommunication pronounced by hierarchs of other Orthodox jurisdictions.
The “L” word of legalism is frequently leveled as a pejoritive to impugn Rome because it is so “top heavy” and has some rather precise rules… But is it fair than to coin a phrase and claim “lacadaisicalism” as the opposite standard in the East?
To go a step further, when I point out my confusion or dismay at conflict in teachings or praxis on any number of these pastoral issues… When I point out some of these alternate pastoral provisions and rulings cannot BOTH be true (they maintain mutually exclusive points of view) I frequently have Eastern apologists rebuff my arguments alternately arguing that my thinking is too philisophical/western/scholastic/rationalist, OR am told that I simply don’t understand oeconomia (at times as presented I certainly don’t) and it is it goes no further.
For exampe I think that it cannot be siultaneously true that Roman orders are graceless while while others think that they in fact are. Some hold duel positions differentiateing between Roman and “Uniate” receptions (thereby begging questions about ritual/form efficacy in addition to concepts of who is “outside the church”). Among those who will tell me “oeconomia provides” for Roman orders they are at a loss to satisfy me with an explination for why similar thought and practice is almost NEVER given to Anglican/Ultrajectine or even protestant bodies. If Romans don’t have valid priesthood but don’t need reordination because chrismation and vesting provides for oeconomia as one ROCOR monk explained to me, I would love to know why Anglican converts aren’t recieved in the same fashion.
Apologies for an overly-long post.
Re: 21
A Simple Sinner,
(Your moniker does not lend itself well to abbreviation)
I think it almost certain they would be received by full baptism and chrismation. It is difficult for me to imagine reception by economy if they could not produce any record of their previous baptism or attest to it through first hand knowledge. The use of the conditional formula although not unknown is extremely rare in Orthodoxy. The only situation where I believe it is normatively used is in cases where there was an emergency baptism by an Orthodox layman or woman. In that circumstance the priest normally will perform a conditional baptism later on (assuming the baptized person survives).
ICXC
John
Re 22,
Broadly speaking many of the observations/complaints you raise regarding differing practices in Orthodox are fair ones. A few quick notes on some of them…
The manner of reception of converts (including clergy) will depend to a large degree on the opinion of the particular synod with respect to the grace of the mysteries among those who are not Orthodox. The Old Calendarists are generally considered to be extremely rigorous and are not really big on oikonomia. They are also mostly schismatic.
The manner in which divorce is dealt with is mostly one of church discipline. However the question of the legitimacy of heterodox marriages is an important and unresolved issue. It has created confusion and frankly even scandal.
Penance is not a legal act per se but a form of spiritual medicine for the healing and strengthening of the wounded soul. It’s purpose is not expiatory. Some bishops will prescribe it in cases of divorce as a tool to help the repentant faithful get back on track. Even where the bishop has no set policy some priests will do it on their own. Others will not. Each case has its own unique circumstances. This is one of those subjects where your mileage will vary.
Acceptance of clergy suspended or deposed by another Orthodox jurisdiction is uncanonical (and very bad form). Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s rare except among the schismatic jurisdictions. Ignoring bans of excommunication is again a serious offense against church canons. Any jurisdiction which does this risks loosing the respect of the other jurisdictions or in extremely serious cases sparking a break in communion. Excepting the schismatic Old Calendarists this is so rare that I really don’t think it is a fair item of complaint.
ICXC
John
John,
On your last point:
“Acceptance of clergy suspended or deposed by another Orthodox jurisdiction is uncanonical (and very bad form)… Excepting the schismatic Old Calendarists this is so rare that I really don’t think it is a fair item of complaint.”
Please understand the points in post #22 were not my own but from an Antiochian priest. It may have hit a little close to home for him as I believe the Antiochans suspended and defrocked several clergy members who in turn were re-ordained in another jurisdiction…
and for the record…
It hadn’t occured to me the difficulties in my user-name acronym until well after I started using it. (G) Though some folks would be happy to use it! Mostly I shorten it with “Simple” heheh
Re #25
A Simple Sinner,
I may have heard something of what you were referring to. I seem to recall that there were several priests who went to Mount Athos and were annoyed when the monks would not permit them to commune because they had been received by economy and not (re) baptized. They then went ahead and allowed themselves (already ordained priests mind you) to be baptized! Needless to say this was an extremely flagrant offense. Their bishop (if memory has not failed me) suspended and deposed them.
If any of them went to another jurisdiction (I had not heard as much) their suspension and deposition remain canonically in full force unless that is lifted by their former bishop. Most canonical Orthodox jurisdictions don’t play that game though. As for the Old Calendarist/ True Orthodox types they come in all kinds of flavors ranging from kinda weird to certifiable tin foil hat types. There is little we can do about them beyond reiterating they are not in communion.
For a Western point of reference think SSPX and some of the more bizarre Trad groups (sede vecantists etc.).
ICXC
John
The tendency toward legalism is probably not so much inherently “Western” nor “Eastern”, as much as it is part of defective human nature.
Amen!!!
I always find it interesting that some of the folks who harp on alleged Catholic legalism–like my ex-Catholic Baptist boss, for instance–are themselves rather decidedly inclined toward legalism. (No offense to any Baptists hereabouts!)
And I have heard of at least one instance in which a convert to Orthodoxy eventually decamped for another communion because he could not stand what he called the “legalism” in his Orthodox jurisdiction.
As I always say, things are tough all over. 🙂 And that has something to do, I think, with Original Sin.
God bless,
Diane
RE #27… John the case you mention – the Athonite presbyteral “re-baptisms” sound vaguely familiar, but in fact that is not the incident I am thinking of…
That Antiochians dealt with disaffected presbyters that the archbishop suspended and laicized… who in turn went to the Patriarch of Jerusalem…
…is it fair than to coin a phrase and claim “lacadaisicalism” as the opposite standard in the East?
I like that phrase, but I think it goes a little off point. What you see happening here is what you saw in the early Church, and attempt to square locally received and revered Tradition with differing Traditions on the same scores elswhere in the ecumene. The most famous is the dating of Pascha. The apostolic-ness of the varying formulae were never really questioned, but the propriety of not celebrating the Feast of Feasts was deemed by Bishops in council (at Nicea) to require the formulation of a common, precise way to date Pascha. Similarly, the Carthaginian (akrivia) and Roman (economia) ways to receive schismatics, heretics and/or apostates were competing, opposite, parallel disciplines in the one Church. Conciliarly, and messily, this was resolved by various canons of the ECs – but the difficulty continues today regarding groups not mentioned in those ancient canons.
What we see is the difference between the virtues of precision requiring clear reporting lines of authority to better facilitate a final decision about Tradition with a conciliar form of decision making that always places the bishops under authority to Tradition and the consensus of the bishops, Fathers and the Church as a whole. The latter is far from ‘efficient’, but this is a virtue meant to protect well-meaning innovators seeking to change with the times mistaking fashion for the unchaning faith.
The base difference is that the Orthodox, similar to the ante-Nicene Church, sees the enunciation of dogma as almost a breakdown in Tradition – it is required only when damage has been done. Otherwise, the faith is understood and passed on in the sacraments and services, from spiritual father to spiritual child. This is why we see no systematic dogmatics texts being formulated and approved by Ecumenical Councils – the faith is something other than texts such as these.
The rise of the Papacy seems very much tied up with seeking a sure and firm ‘answer’ to each and every question that arises, and which can then be enshrined as the ‘final answer’ from the ‘final court of appeal’. There are definite virtues in this, and the Orthodox tend to be far too slap-dash for this Anglo-Saxon, but the danger is to replace God with formulas and fact and answers about God. This final court of appeal papacy also does not seem to me to be in keeping with the way in which the conciliar Church acted; the only people agitating for a role like this for Rome were Romans, it seems to me and this just doesn’t say to me that this was an apostolic teaching – others, of course, can differ in their reading of history and the usual texts brought up on this score.
According to my Byzantinist hubby, the pre-Schism East was addicted to hyper-refined theological argument, ultra-precise definitions of terms, and endless debates over the very finest theological points. This, he says, is precisely why the East was so roiled by heresies–and so concerned with nailing down the last, er, iota.
How this squares with some of the claims made above is beyond me.
Oh well. 😉
Diane
I think the East learned its lesson and thus became more allergic to cataphatic attempts to systematize the totality of the faith. They were also wary of centralization of ‘truth’ and church power given their experiences of non-Orthodox Emperors and Patriarchs of Constantinople. This error is not solely that of either the Western or Eastern Roman Empires, or their dynastic and ecclesiastical heirs.
I think the East learned its lesson and thus became more allergic to cataphatic attempts to systematize the totality of the faith.
I confess I don’t get this. ISTM those “cataphatic” decisions by the early ecumenical councils (as ratified by the popes :)) were pretty essential safeguards of doctrinal orthodoxy.
Would you not concede that that iota was pretty darned important? 😉
Can you imagine subsequent Christian history without it?
God bless,
Diane
Cataphatic attempts to systematize the whole faith, not important iotas of the faith (such as the Trinity and Christ). Of course, ‘positive’ statements were made in the East, just as ‘negative’ statements were made in the West. We are talking tendencies here, not absolutes.
The East generally sees cataphatic dogma as a disciplinary hedge of last resort to point out the boundary beyond which one cannot go – it does not seek to create a manual of all similarly cataphatic answers to all questions that might arise. Fealty to Tradition and worship are the regular vehicles of faith transmission. This is why we don’t see even an attempt at a modern ‘catechism’ until St. John of Damascus in the 700s. Canon law has also been difficult since even the proceedings and canons of the ECs were not maintained in a systematic way.
The ECs were also ratified by all of the other bishops in attendence. Rome’s ratification was needed as much as those of the rest of the Pentarchy for it to be an ‘ecumenical’ (universal) council. The same was true in Ephesus where Antioch’s eventual ratification was required for it to be accepted as ecumenical. The Eastern patriarchates tended to vote more in line with each other because they shared more of their culture, and a language; Rome was the odd man out being a cultural backwater with no political influence, geographical interest and speaking an ‘old-fashioned’ language. This is why Rome tended to be the hold-out or the one not marching in step with the others – thank God, or Arius and Nestorius may have won the day. Having been right doesn’t guarantee one can’t be wrong – think of the stories of holy men falling from grace at the last and exchanging their inheritance for pottage.
Interestingly, I remembered Ad Orientem’s comment that Orthodox do not baptize sub conditionale when reading a recommendation in the book “May God Grant You Wisdom”. In this book, the (recently) late Fr. John Krestiankin, Archimandrite of the Pskov Caves Monastery in Russia, advised a sub conditionale baptism and gave the exact phase to be used. The book is a composite of only his letters in response to letters he received, so the exact situation underlying this recommendation is not clear.
I think the East learned its lesson and thus became more allergic to cataphatic attempts to systematize the totality of the faith.
I think that the monolithic “East” implicit in this claim is a pure flight of fancy, and that the whole claim built on this premise is wishful thinking in the service of revisionist history. Of course, that is just what I think, and there is no reason why anyone ought to care what I think…
What Christopher says about an allergy “to cataphatic attempts to systematize the totality of the faith” may be generally true in Eastern Orthodoxy in our day and age.
I suspect (I could be wrong) that this allergy may be due more to 20th century Eastern Orthodox theology, in its reaction to the so-called “Western Captivity” of Orthodox theology.
And, even today, one could read certain Eastern Orthodox blogs and Internet commentators (present company excluded) and not really get the impression that these folks have resisted “attempts to systematize the totality of the faith.”
Also, going along with Greg’s point about not generalizing about the East … We see different strains of thought and approaches to theology in both East and West.
Yes, Virginia, there was such a thing as Byzantine scholasticism, and no, I don’t think that it was all bad (although I’m sure much of it was).
Likewise, the Western Church has a lot more than just scholasticism and the cold theology of the academy: there is an incredibly rich mystical, ascetical, and apophatic tradition of theology in the West as well.
Likewise, the Western Church has a lot more than just scholasticism and the cold theology of the academy: there is an incredibly rich mystical, ascetical, and apophatic tradition of theology in the West as well.
Thank you!!
Actually, an irenic Protestant gentleman (who ended up becoming Orthodox) made a very similar point. Catholicism, he observed, accommodates every kind of legitimate spirituality, the entire spectrum, from “the icy intellectualism of a Ronald Knox to the sentimental pietism of a Therese of Lisieux.”
I’m not sure he was entirely fair to Therese–she was a pretty tough cookie; one has to be to be a Carmelite–but his basic point stands, I think. It is one big reason why I am Catholic. An erstwhile colleague used to wear a sweatshirt, around Christmas, screen-printed with the words “Santa, I want it all!” That’s kind of the way I feel–“Jesus, I want it all!” Icons and statues. Apophasis and cataphasis. Mysticism and scholasticism. Mary and Martha. Contemplation and action. Chotkis and rosaries. Eastern saints and Western saints. Faith and Reason. Basilians and Benedictines (and Franciscans and Dominicans and Carthusians and Carmelites….) Byzantine chant and Gregorian chant (and Palestrina and Poulenc and just about everyone except Marty Haugen–LOL!). Every ethnic and racial group under the sun. Every legitimate, orthodox Christian spirituality. Every legitimate Christian devotional tradition, Eastern and Western. The whole nine yards. I want it all.
That, in a nutshell, is why I’m Catholic.
One of these days I’m gonna get around to blogging about that. 🙂
Diane
I agree that the East is more than a monolithic whole. The West was essenitally Rome for much of the first millenium, whereas the East were all the varying Christian centres founded by Apostles (or, being the center of the ecumene where the Emperor and Senate resided in the consciously Christian New Rome built by Constantine).
The broad points I would make are that there were no systematic texts attempting to encapsulate the entire faith, as the definition of the Faith, until at least the Damascene. St Cyril’s surviving work was specifically a recording of the baptismal instructions given – a direct tie to the sacramental act, which was the sum of the teaching. These facts are not the creation of 20th Century, revisionist Orthodoxy.
While scholasticism became more dominant in East and West this had a heavier influence in the West because there was not a leading apostolic church in the West to challenge the totality of the faith as defined in the scholastic way (again, common in East and West to some extent) as accepted in Rome. This, therefore, became The Faith. There was a centralization of authority in matters of faith in the West that was not present in the East due to the multiplicity of apostolically founded Churches in that region. So, the Antiochians could keep the Alexandrians in line when they took their own tradition of the Tradition as the definition of Tradition in toto – and vice versa. Rome acted as this brake when the culturally and intellectually more homogeneous ‘East’ swallowed a little too much Hellenistic philosophy and tried to bend the Faith to it, rather than vice versa – though, of course, there were a good number of Eastern individuals (e.g., the Cappadocians, Maximus) and constituencies (e.g., the monks) who acted in the same way within the East, too. The East has attempted the same once Rome became a little too enamored of Aristotle and its own tradition of the Tradition to the exclusion of all else (filioque and papal supremacy/infallibility).
Diane –
Reminds me of this quote by Archimandrite Lev Gillet (“A Monk of the Eastern Church”), which I’ve always admired:
Christopher,
Yes, but I don’t see the Eastern situation as you describe as being radically different from what was going on in the West in roughly the same period. Scholasticism comes on the scene much later – and both Rome and Byzantium had their own forms of it, as well as monastic resistance movements (see St. Bernard’s objections to the new scholastic movement in the West).
I didn’t mean to suggest that 20th century Orthodox theology just made everything up out of whole cloth. My point is that it’s possible that the “patristic revival” is a bit more than a simple return … there’s a lot of creative interpretation going on as well, and a certain reactionary recasting of an textbook “East” pitted against against a textbook “West” (involving grossly inaccurate caricatures especially about “Western theology”). Again, it’s not all bad by any means! There is a lot to be admired and praised in 20th century (and 21st century) Orthodox theology. But I get just a bit annoyed when people act as if Orthodox theology has always been as homogenous and monolithic as it is sometimes presented to be today.
Again, I could be wrong, and I invite correction.
Re # 41: What a fantastic quote!!!!
Agreed. While there are a lot of secondary and tertiary things one could speak about regarding differences between East and West, the main issues are: the filioque (as both an addition and a teaching) and the papacy. Everything else regarding ‘scholasticism’, or whatnot, hangs off these differences.
Agreed also that 20th Century Orthodox theology is as much 20th Century as Orthodox or patristic, the same can be said of Vatican I and II, however, as well as their ‘spirits’. This is why it is always dangerous to exchange conciliarity (across geography and time) for local, partisanship in theology – be that Roman, Russian, Greek, American, Dominican, Franciscan, Athonite or Schmemannite.
Thanks, Christopher. I couldn’t agree more about parochialism and partisanship in theology. John Paul II’s much misunderstood imagery of the “two lungs” comes to mind.