Posted on 06/23/2005 10:34:22 PM PDT by Agrarian
Please see the previous postings in this series:
: Holy Tradition: The Source of the Orthodox Faith
: The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)
: The Three Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II
I will post others as I am able to make them available.
Ping for those who are interested.
BUMP for Tuesday. Many thanks for posting these incredible treatises. I often share with RC amigos.
Thank you for posting these.
You are both most welcome. I'm sorry to be jumping about on the timeline, but many of these documents are not readily available in English.
The importance of these documents is, among other things, that they demonstrate that we Orthodox FReepers in pajamas are not making opinions up -- but rather are following in a long and consistent theological tradition.
Orthodox freepers in pajamas. I like that.
Great jobAgrarian! However, judging from the feedback on previous parts, little good will this do to the Latins.
It should be noted, as regards the Invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Canon, that this does not seem to have existed since the fifth century, according to the testimony of the ancient liturgical books. The charge that the Patriarchs level here, that it was excised by the scholastics, is, to my knowledge, entirely baseless.
When did the Roman Catholic Church ever use aspersion in Baptism, like the Patriarchs complain?
In fact, we used to (and may still) conditionally rebaptize those baptized in this way, since it is unclear whether or not they were actually touched by the saving waters.
This document is truly a remarkable one for its clarity, its penetrating truth, and its love. It is worth a careful read by all Orthodox on this list. I was very moved by these words in particular:
But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."
There are many, many more passages that are quite memorable. I had never read this document before I started this little series (and I dare say that it is a rare Orthodox Christian that has heard of it, let alone read it), but I am struck by how consistent its contents are with what I have absorbed during my years in Orthodoxy, and with what Orthodox Christians of every background convey on this forum in these discussions.
The faith and the phronema really are the same in every age... Again, this statement is very much worth reading and digesting.
I don't believe that's correct, Hermann. The Roman Catechism says:
"Now this ablution is not more really accomplished by immersion, which was for a considerable time the practice in the early ages of the Church, than by infusion, which we now see in general use, or by aspersion, which there is reason to believe was the manner in which Peter baptised, when on one day he converted and gave Baptism to about three thousand souls"
And St. Cyprian concurs (Ep. 75:13):
"Or if any one think that those have gained nothing by having only been sprinkled with the saving water, but that they are still empty and void, let them not be deceived, so as if they escape the evil of their sickness, and get well, they should seek to be baptized."
The epiklesis, as I understand it, was an unwritten tradition long before it was first written down. St. Basil makes reference to this in the 4th century. Some have claimed that the "Maranatha" of the Didache is an early epiklesis, but that seems to be a bit of a stretch.
In the commentary of St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Divine Liturgy, he points out that the Roman liturgy has an epiklesis, as well. This has been sometimes portrayed as him defending the Roman liturgy -- but actually, what he is doing is defending against attacks by Romans on the Eastern Liturgies. In his day, the Roman polemicists were claiming that since the bread and wine were transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the time of the words of institution, the Epiklesis was a sacrilege, since the Easterns were asking God to bless something that was already the Body and Blood of Christ.
Cabasilas was rather simply showing that the Roman rite has something similar, and thereby showed that Roman condemnations of the epiklesis were self-contradictory. His point seems to have been that the Latins were so consumed by their own analysis and explanation of their Liturgy that they failed to consider the Liturgy itself.
There is no evidence of which I am aware that the Eastern Patriarchates looked critically at the Roman Liturgy until the post-schismatic period, when they were responding to Roman polemics. They may have done so, but I'm not aware of it.
An interesting question is whether the unwritten tradition of epiklesis prayers existed universally, and whether those unwritten prayers were dropped in the West, while becoming written prayers in the East. A more likely explanation is to be found in Cabasilas' commentary -- the epiklesis was written down, in two different kinds of ways, in Western and Eastern liturgies alike. But in the Western Liturgies, it is not as explicit, and the traditional understanding of this invocation was lost in the scholastic dissections of the exact mechanisms of the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.
Even to this day, there are a few ancient unwritten prayers in the Orthodox Church sometimes said by priests at certain points of the liturgy, prayers that have been passed down through oral tradition. Don't ask me to give you an example -- I'm not a priest, and I've never had occasion to learn any of them, but I do know that they exist, even though here in the U.S., where we are very "book oriented," I don't think they are all that well-known. Many of the vesting prayers were once orally passed down, until they were finally written down. Same for prayers said when putting incense on the coals, etc...
What gives rise to Orthodox objections to the lack of an explicit epiklesis in Catholic practice was, I believe, the Roman declaration that it is at the precise moment of the completion of the sentences at the words of institution that it instantly becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. This gives the impression that these are "magic words" said by the priest speaking for Christ. The epiklesis makes it explicitly clear that God is doing the work, and not the priest. Even with the epiklesis, Orthodox are hesitant to declare exactly when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. One priest once told me that the change probably starts during Vespers the evening before, and is certainly complete by the time the priest communes, but that was as exact as he was willing to be!
Even today in Orthdoxy, a baptism by pouring or even aspersion can be considered to be grace-filled, if done under conditions of necessity. My long-time spiritual father -- a real stickler on "akrevia" in most matters, including baptism, had an aged non-Orthodox relative who asked to be baptized into the Church on his deathbed. He obviously did so by pouring, and with great joy. But this is an economia, and is considered to be irregular.
The fact that during some eras of the Church, including our own, non-Orthodox have been commonly received into the Church by chrismation, even though they received non-Orthodox baptisms by aspersion or pouring also shows that the Orthodox church considers those forms to be ones that can be filled with the grace of an Orthdox baptism. Again, this is economia -- not the fullness of traditional practice.
A problem from an Orthodox point of view is that an economia was made into the fullness of practice, and that baptism by immersion was completely forgotten, in spite of the ancient provenance of immersion and in spite of the fact that immersion combines the imagery of washing with that of burial and resurrection -- whereas pouring and aspersion only has the former.
This from the on-line Catholic encyclopedia:
"The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not only evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles of St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephes., v, 26; Rom., vi, 4; Tit., iii, 5). In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century."
Thanks for the reply. Glad you enjoyed the piece.
It has been pointed out elsewhere, but is worth repeating, that many ancient Churches show no evidence of baptisms by immersion, their baptistry's being far to shallow for an adult to be so baptized. For example, the ruined Church at Nazareth, dating from the second century, has only a shallow baptistry in which a man could stand, but hardly be immersed.
Similarly, the River Jordan is not deep enough where Christ and St. John are traditionally thought to have been baptized for immersion baptisms.
Christian art in the catacombs shows Catechumens standing in rivers and having water poured over their head, as are early depcitions of St. John baptizing Christ.
The oldest Christian tradition is in the Didache, which the Apostles themselves wrote. They say:
"But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Didache, 7.1-3)
The Roman Ritual has as long as it has been around, only allowed for Baptism by immersion or ablution.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism notes the practice of rebaptising those baptised by aspersion, since it is unclear if they were actually touched by the waters.
1917 Code:
Can. 758. Licet baptismus conferri valide possit aut per infusionem, aut per immersionem, aut per aspersionem, primus tamen vel secundus modus, aut mixtus ex utroque, qui magis sit in usu, retineatur, secundum probatos diversarum Ecclesiarum rituales libros.
I don't see that in the Encyclopedia article - I think you're misreading something there.
"By the present authorized ritual of the Latin Church, baptism must be performed by a laving of the head of the candidate." (the current ritual now also admits immersion)
"As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that ... the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.