Posted on 09/09/2006 3:04:19 PM PDT by Calvin Coollidge
Yep!
Might be an plasphemy, but Serbia is only part in ex-Yugoslavia, Vojvodina, especialy, where was no war between Christians. last on we hade was in 1941-1945, and Last war between local Serbs and Hungarians was Hungarian revolution in 1848. So I can agree (I alkready stated that Im not religious expert) about double-baptisment to be plasphemy, yet, for over 150 years we hade no war and churches live in peace, so... I would leave it alone...
And that's a good thing, and I've no desire to stir up trouble ...
Here's a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Donatists", which addresses the problem of "rebabtism" in its original historical circumstances ... the year is 311 ... long before the "Great Schism".
For the present, if we can, let us limit our discussion to the Petrine primacy. If, for the sake of argument, we were to stipulate that the theological differences were minor and of non-essential matter, could the Orthodox come into union with Rome while she reiterated the claims made by Leo and other early pope?
As regards papal jurisdictional authority outined in he quote of +Leo the Great, please note that the quote says there arose also a distinction among bishops. Clearly +Leo Great here concedes that the greater authority arose among bishops, leading to different levels of authority, which clearly shows that it was not something given, but evaluational in nature.
I think that you are misrepresenting Leo's position. The distinction that arose among the bishops was "also" among those other than the pope. For he also states:
Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others.In his letter to the bishops of the province of Vienne in the year 445 he writes:
But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the Apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. And He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he himself was no longer a sharer in the divine mystery.We can see a simular teaching from Pope Gelasius I writing in 495:
Although the universal Catholic Church spread throughout the world has the one marriage of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman Church has not been preferred to the other churches by reason of synodical decrees, but she has held the primacy by the evangelical voice of the Lord and Savior saying; Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed in heaven.We can even see this expressed by the Council of Ephesus in 431:
On one doubts, but rather it has been known to all generations, that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation stone of the Catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that the power of binding and loosing sins was given to him, who up to this moment and always lives in his successors, and judges.
"For the present, if we can, let us limit our discussion to the Petrine primacy. If, for the sake of argument, we were to stipulate that the theological differences were minor and of non-essential matter, could the Orthodox come into union with Rome while she reiterated the claims made by Leo and other early pope?"
In haste as I am at the office; this is precisely what the Orthodox/Roman dialog recently resumed is discussing. The sentiment seems to be that if a working definition of papal primacy can be arrived at which is acceptable all around, the other issues will fall into place. Personally, I think the writings of the Fathers and the Popes from the early years of The Church as well as an in depth study of how whatever primacy The Church actually recognized in the popes worked out "on the ground, then", as opposed to the post hoc, propter hoc reasoning which seems to infest so much of this discussion from both sides, will be vital to any final resolution of this fundamental question. Even that will be difficult because it is not only possible, but likely, that each "side" thought the other understood what it was saying even then, when in fact neither side understood the other after say, the late 500s or early 600s.
Indeed. Prayer (and miracles) don't change God (such an absurdity!); rather: through our prayer God changes us. For the better.
Who appointed the bishop in the photo?
The "bishop" in the photo is actually Roger Cardinal Mahony, appointed by Archbishop Jadot - Still Proud Of Bishops He Gave U.S.
The archbishop just turned 96. He entertained the dream of one day seeing Vatican Council III convened, and moving the Catholic Church in a totally modern direction. To do that would entail moving his players up the ranks and into the College of Cardinals. He failed to factor in the Holy Spirit. His plan backfired. In the meantime, we are stuck with "his" bishops, until they retire.
We can, with the understanding that no union is possible until it is based on theological unity and not on any agreement on jurisdictional authority of any bishop.
Could the Orthodox come into union with Rome while she reiterated the claims made by Leo and other early pope?
Inasmuch as it is understood that we are dealing with papal opinions and not orders, yes. For +Leo I says "From this formality there arose also a distinction among bishops, and by a great arrangement it was provided that no one should arrogate everything to himself, but in individual provinces there should be individual bishops whose opinion among their brothers should be first"
Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power [+Leo I]
I am not sure what he means by "power." If he means ability to do things, I would say, yes because he was given the keys, and only he had possession of them. If it is to mean as being supreme over other bishops, I would say no. Distinction is not supremacy. As the oldest Apostle he received the keys, not because he was better or somehow more faithful than others.
Again, there is no evidence anywhere in the NT that he was given authority to "lord"over other Apostles, not is he ever referred to as the "prince" of the Apostles.
But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the Apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles [+Leo I].
This is clearly +Leo's personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
"...and that the power of binding and loosing sins was given to [+Peter], who up to this moment and always lives in his successors, and judges..." [Council of Ephesus, 431]
That is rather misleading (if taken out of context), because the power of loosen and bind was given to all the Apostles, not through Peter, but directly by the Lord, although not at the same time, but it was unconditional and independent of +Peter, and that all their successors through them.
That Peter's "supremacy" was not as clear to the Apostles as it is clear to the 21st century Roman Catholic Church is evidenced in the very fact that the Apostles argued who was first among them.
One thing is clear: the office and the power of papal supremacy evolved as is not something the Church taught everywhere and always.
As long as the West maintains that "first" means "superior" we will not even be able to come to an agreement to convene an Ecumenical Council, let alone hash out theological differences.
"...I didn't mean to imply that you were "double baptized."
Just as a side note. The Serbians routinely baptize all converts to Orthodoxy including Roman Catholics.
When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).
No church can run "on consensus".
" No church can run "on consensus"."
That's pretty much, in a counciliar/synodal way, what Orthodoxy has been doing for the past 2000 years, NYer.
It appears that wrong people were appointed all the way up the line!
Pope appoints cardinals who then appoints bishops...you would think that some reflections and care would be taken before these nasty things occurred.
It goes something like:
If you have not already been Baptised, then I Baptise you ...
In Orthodoxy this is something of an issue we are still working out. There are a number of ways which converts can be received, all of which are considered valid when done properly. However, unlike in the RCC where the sacraments have been separated from the church, which is to say that you believe non-Catholics can in certain situations perform "valid" sacraments we don't generally hold to that view. In Orthodox theology (and this is the solid teaching of the fathers both east and west) the grace of the Holy Spirit in the Mysteries flows through the Church. All of the Holy Mysteries (sacraments) are performed in cooperation with the entire Church which is the mystical body of Christ. Thus it is the firm teaching of the Orthodox Church that there are no Mysteries outside off the Church. This is one one of the reasons we don't worry too much about the weird schismatic groups that pop up now and then in both the east and the west. Those who have gravely and obviously separated themselves from the Church can not perform Mysteries since they lack the grace that flows only through the Mystical Body of Christ. The Mysteries to us are not magic. So we are not concerned if someone has the correct matter form and intent, and if at some point 200 years ago they were blessed with what one Roman Catholic theologian referred to as the "Dutch Touch." conferring "valid" apostolic orders.
Now this position has created all kinds of questions specific to the situation in the modern world, some of which we have not thus far worked out with unanimity. Fr. George Florovsky wrote an interesting essay on "The Limits of the Church" in which he noted (IMO correctly) that while we can know with certainty where the Church is (canonical Orthodoxy) and sometimes with a reasonable degree of certainty where it is not (most if not all of the so called Protestant sects) there are gray areas where we just don't know for sure where the exact line is on the other side of which the grace of God necessary for the Mysteries has ceased to flow. Several examples would be the Roman Catholic Church, the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches and some of the schismatic Orthodox sects (radical Old Calendarists and the like).
Some jurisdictions have adopted a very narrow interpretation of the rule that the Mysteries do not exist outside the Church and firmly reject any grace in Roman Catholic and all other heterodox sacraments. They typically baptize all converts to Orthodoxy. Others (this is the more moderate position and also by far the more common one in Orthodoxy) are more discerning and will receive converts from other Christian confessions which have performed some form of baptismal ceremony using water, the Trinitarian Formula and whose understanding of baptism is the same as or very close to Orthodoxy's by confession, profession of faith and Holy Chrismation. In the Orthodox Church receiving converts by the Mystery of Chrismation is seen as an act of Oikonomia (a dispensation from a normal discipline for pastoral reasons). It is also accepted that Chrismation can fill with grace that which was empty of it and make whole otherwise defective Mysteries. Thus in the Russian tradition RC priests who convert are not normally re-ordained but are simply vested after Chrismation since the RCC has maintained the outward form of apostolic succession and an Orthodox understanding (generally) of the Holy Mysteries. Even very strict jurisdictions (such as the Russian Church Abroad as opposed to the Moscow Patriarchate) will sometimes receive converts in this manner for unusual reasons. In the Russian Orthodox Church (and here in the OCA) the custom is that Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and a few of the confessional Trinitarian Protestants (such as Anglicans) are received as converts by Chrismation and are not normally baptized. Non confessional Protestants (so called Evangelicals and the like) are almost always baptized since their baptisms do not even claim to do that which we do. They deny the sacramental nature of baptism. We also baptize when there is any doubt.
Finally it should be noted that we are not quite so legalistic in our approach to double baptism. We also have a conditional formula for baptism but in my experience it is rarely used. (Usually only in cases where an emergency baptism was performed by an Orthodox layman.) Since Mysteries performed outside the canonical boundaries of the Church are presumed to be void and empty of grace, baptism is an acceptable method for receiving all converts. My OCA bishop noted that the custom of receiving converts by Chrismation is an act of Oikonomia and it is never wrong to receive by baptism. Regarding the danger of a double baptism (we also confess "one baptism" in the creed), the Church sees God as rather bigger than the legalistic one that many westerners seem to have embraced. God knows if someone was "validly" (that term is not Orthodox but I will use it for now) baptized before. And they know when we baptize converts we do so out of an abundance of caution. No Orthodox priest is attempting to perform a Mystery that can only be performed once a second time. God understands this and thus no sacrilege is performed.. I have suggested to my priest in the past that we could adopt the use of the conditional formula for some baptisms. He basically asked me "Why? Do you think God doesn't know if someone was already baptized or that we are not attempting to repeat baptism?"
So, cutting to the chase, you avoid "double baptism" either by claiming that nobody can baptise except the Orthodox, or by not baptising converts from the Catholic Church or from Protestant denominations that you recognise as having an (O|o)rthodox view of baptism. The latter is essentially the Catholic approach. The Catholic "conditional baptism" is used with converts from Protestant ecclesial communities with dubious recordkeeping or dubious theology.
He basically asked me "Why? Do you think God doesn't know if someone was already baptized or that we are not attempting to repeat baptism?"
lex orandi, lex credendi ... OF COURSE God knows what's going on. He's God. The point is to make sure WE know what we're doing, and to make explicit what we're doing and what we're not doing. We believe that "double baptism" is a heresy/blasphemy ... so we make sure not to even look like we're doing one. See again the Donatist heresy for historical background.
"God knows if someone was "validly" (that term is not Orthodox but I will use it for now) baptized before. And they know when we baptize converts we do so out of an abundance of caution. No Orthodox priest is attempting to perform a Mystery that can only be performed once a second time. God understands this and thus no sacrilege is performed."
Our parish has had an amazing influx of converts over the past five years and our practice has been as you have outlined. In one instance we baptized someone who most likely had been baptized a Roman Catholic at birth. This was in the case of a young Filipina who had been adoted by some fundamentalist "free church" type Protestants when she was 4 years old. She of course had no baptism records but we did have a paper saying that her birth mother was a Roman Catholic. I communicated with some Jesuits on the island she came from, but they couldn't find any records. Our Metropolitan decided that lacking any concrete evidence that she had been baptized, we needed to baptize her and if we were wrong, he was quite sure God "will understand".
As for marriages, I think we only recognize Roman Catholic marriages as being fully sacramental and require all other converts to "have their marriage blessed" by The Church. I am also aware of several instances where Eastern Rite Catholic priests have converted and their orders are fully recognized (I don;t know about Latin Rite priests though I expect it is the same. We do not accept Anglican ordinations). There is no re-ordination, merely a vesting. I also understand that that caused a problem for at least one such priest while on Mount Athos.
Understood. But the Orthodox Church cannot evolve without one leader to sanction change. This is evidenced by the absence of one stance with regard to birth control. In his book, The Orthodox Church, Bishop Kallistos Ware states:
The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father.
This is precisely where 'consensus' leads - nowhere. What is the Orthodox Church positon on IVF or the use of fetal stem cells? What about cloning?
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.