Two perspectives on the reception of converts into Orthodoxy (from other Christian confessions)
For your inspection...
On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches - by Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin)
The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church - By Patrick Barnes (.pdf file format; Adobe Reader required to download/view - get it here)
Comment: Read both, as each offer some important perspective on this often controversial topic.
On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches - by Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin)
The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church - By Patrick Barnes (.pdf file format; Adobe Reader required to download/view - get it here)
Comment: Read both, as each offer some important perspective on this often controversial topic.
posted by The Rambler at 3:53 PM
8 Comments:
So Mr Barnes wrote a book and posted the whole thing! Had a better look at Fr Ambrose's article: impressive as it's fair-minded and historically accurate, giving historical reasons for positions later adopted, even if one doesn't agree with those conclusions. He notes the historic Russian non-hostility to other Christians.
Hello Serge,
Patrick Barnes' book was originally a printed edition published by Regina Orthodox Press, but after that went out of print he decided (for reasons he gives in the intro to the free download version) to distribute the text for free. I had been interested in reading this work for some time, but was unable to get a hand on a copy for the above mentioned reason - so I was quite pleased to see the author giving away a downloadable version on his website.
I've come to a point where I am "more so" on Fr.Ambrose' "side", for the following basic reasons...
- It reflects not only classical East-Roman (read "Greek") Orthodox thought, but that of Slavic, Semitic, and pre-schism Western Orthodoxy.
- On the flip side, the harsher "Greek views" seem relatively modern, at least in their insistance and dogmatism.
- Reality as I've experienced it, in all honesty, doesn't permit me to accept the "hawkish" view, as much as I've tried to make it fit. My feet simply don't fit into those boots.
I've come to the point where I sincerely believe "Orthodox is it", and that the west will go a long way (both Protestants and Roman Catholics), the right way, in bringing themselves back to Her (which in truth is where they once were.)
By "Orthodox" of course, I do not mean adoption of the Byzantine-rite, or the fakery of adopting Hellenic (or Slavic) culture. Rather, I'm talking about the spiritual-dogmatic heritage which was at one time just as much the lot of "westerners" as it was "easterners".
As far as I'm concerned, what fundamentally separates the opinions of Sts.Augustine and Cyprian themselves on this matter, is the issue of sacramental character and whether or not it is to be found in schismatic rites (where applicable.) Otherwise, they both fundamentally agree, since St.Augustine also taught that the "grace of regeneration" was not to be obtained in the rites of renegades (thus, while he believed a properly conducted schismatic baptism was "valid", it did not confer the grace of regeneration - that would only occur when the person in question repented and joined "the Church.")
Of course, a complication which can be thrown in here, is the issue of culpability - and it would be here that perhaps the difference between St.Cyprian and St.Augustine's views becomes more pronounced.
For what it's worth, while some may argue that in theory the East took a shine for St.Cyprian, the practical reality is that they never fully adopted his views, since such would make impossible the practice of any sort of baptismal/sacramental "economy" - yet it is quite clear from both local and Ecumenical Councils that Orthodoxy does admit schismatics (and certain heterodox Christians) via the second and third rites.
I just thought I would as well drop in and offer some of my comments, as one who has moved from the Fr. Ambrose position to the Greek position (which is maintained even by the mainstream Church of Greece for the most part).
“It reflects not only classical East-Roman (read "Greek") Orthodox thought, but that of Slavic, Semitic, and pre-schism Western Orthodoxy.”
St. Cyprian was a westerner, and St. Augustine's concern seemed to be with the implications of Donatism (i.e. he wanted to show that the holiness of a priest in the church did not affect his sacraments, whereas the position of St. Cyprian and others dealt with the implications of a priest existing outside the Church); the Russians went back and forth on how to receive converts until Peter the Great; classical East Roman practice seemed to base whether a heretic was to be baptized on if he was baptized with the correct formula, not on a manner of determening “how far” the heretic was from Orthodoxy.
“On the flip side, the harsher "Greek views" seem relatively modern, at least in their insistance and dogmatism.”
With the caveat, the point stands.
“Reality as I've experienced it, in all honesty, doesn't permit me to accept the "hawkish" view, as much as I've tried to make it fit. My feet simply don't fit into those boots.”
Reality moved me to the Greek view. The “Fr Ambrose” view looks attractive on paper but is now a) being used by ecumenists to teach that non-Orthodox sacraments have grace per se and that they are therefore part of the Church and b) leads to extreme pastoral confusion.
“By "Orthodox" of course, I do not mean adoption of the Byzantine-rite, or the fakery of adopting Hellenic (or Slavic) culture. Rather, I'm talking about the spiritual-dogmatic heritage which was at one time just as much the lot of "westerners" as it was "easterners".”
It's not fakery to adopt Hellenic culture if by Hellenic we mean Christian Roman. This was the culture of the east and the west before the schism; it is the shell in which the Orthodox faith is nurtured. But if by Hellenic we mean post-Enlightenment Greek nationalism or even worse, “Zorba the Greek” culture, then I agree with you.
As far as the comparison of Augustine and Cyprian, I much agree.
I think one of the basic problems in your and others' presentations, on both sides (and my old way of thinking as well!), is a need to go back into history and fish for proof of his opinions. I don't argue for the Greek position as some “hawks” do, insisting that it is the only viable option, and ignore the historical evidence against it [nor do I approve of the way Fr. Ambrose ignores much of the Greek arguments in his piece). I instead argue that it has been employed in various places in history and was not universal; however, but should be univerally adopted today because of the pastoral need of people to know that Orthodoxy in the unique Church of Christ, and because it is fundamentally unfair to people to be denying them the fullness of the rites of Christian initiation.
"The 'Fr Ambrose' view looks attractive on paper but is now a) being used by ecumenists to teach that non-Orthodox sacraments have grace per se and that they are therefore part of the Church and b) leads to extreme pastoral confusion."
I see your point here, Anastasios--the proper underlying understanding of "chrismation only" is being misunderstood (and horribly abused) today--but must disagree that because of this misunderstanding we must therefore adopt "baptism only" as our unilateral manner of reception.
"Augustine" (as we know him on OC.net) makes it clear that accepting the validity of the form of a heterodox baptism (while denying its sacramental efficacy) is a very ancient custom in the Church; again, this concept is being abused far too liberally within the Church at large today, but the answer is not necessarily to do away with an abused rite for reasons of abuse itself: Abusis non tollit usum.
Rather, strong insistence by the episcopacy and priesthood that this rite of chrismation fills the "form of Godliness" in heterodox baptisms with the "power thereof" that is only to be found within the Church is to be given to the faithful.
Bryan Peter, who feels he should have been baptized, but is comfortable now w/his chrismation
BTW--I love that article by Archimandrite Ambrosius (as if it weren't obvious by my last post!).
Thanks for posting it.
Hello everyone!
I think Bryan puts it well, when he says that "abuse" shouldn't dictate policy via some immoderate reaction.
Reading the 18th century document from the Constantinople Synod, I think it's important to keep in mind that it's central thrust is that the manner of baptism normally employed by the Latins at that time (and to this day - pouring water over the forehead) is not acceptable. The emphasis doesn't seem to be upon the idea that it's "simply a bath", but a rejection of the form being employed. The two matters ("invalid form" and "the uselessness of schismatic/heretical baptism") are distinct, but seem to be often confused.
This "mixing up of issues" reminds me a lot of the Old Calendar debate. Upon looking at the "source materials", what becomes clear is that for the earliest "Old Calendarists" (and their early declarations make this clear) their issues had nothing to do with "ecumenism" or what have you, but were a canonical matter - namely, the belief that the New Calendar violated ecclessiastical customs and Church canons. Now however, many people confuse the two matters, and end up complicating a matter which is already difficult enough to sort out and make sense of.
But, back to heterodox-schismatic rites...
I think this forever condemend to be a "controversial" topic, because by it's nature we're treading onto territory which is outside of the knowledge that has been given to us.
God gave us His Son, He gave us the Church, and He gave us the ministry of the Church (the Sacraments); all of these for our salvation. We know how this all "ought to be", yet what we are dealing with here are situations which are far from this arrangement - with groups who have for whatever reason entered into schism, heresy, or both.
I think you find different answers to these questions, because different ecclessiastical figures (of differing levels of repute/authority) are interpreting the consequences of these schisms using different inferences.
For example, we do know that it is (unfortunately) quite possible to fall away from the way which leads to life - to "fall from grace" utterly. But we also know it's possible, to keep one's two feet nominally in the Church, but to (perhaps even more unfortunately) receive Mysteries sacreligiously. Etc., etc. There are many more individual examples we can look to.
This then, gets "grafted on", to the sad situation of large bodies of people being separated from the Church through one circumstance or another.
On an "official" basis, I think (and I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself here) it's best to look at such "separated" folks with a certain sadness, but acknowledging the revealed truth that "God will have mercy on who He will". It's for this reason, I find both "extremes" to be unsatisfactory (whether it be a flat out denial of grace amongst those outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church, or a presumption to the contrary which stops short of some kind of Anglican "branch theorism".)
In the end, I'm with Bp.Tikhon (OCA), when he says the Church doesn't need to apologize when She simply follows long standing ecclessiastical tradition, and refuses to "re-baptize" persons coming from Roman Catholicism or certain confessional Protestant backgrounds.
"It's not fakery to adopt Hellenic culture if by Hellenic we mean Christian Roman. This was the culture of the east and the west before the schism; it is the shell in which the Orthodox faith is nurtured. But if by Hellenic we mean post-Enlightenment Greek nationalism or even worse, “Zorba the Greek” culture, then I agree with you."
Just a minor point: Christian Roman *is* what is called Western Civilization. If one is meaning Byzantine by 'Christian Roman', then the West has *never* been Byzantine, nor does the West need to become Byzantine. Adopting Byzantine mentality, culture, etc. (ie, Hellenic, Slavic, etc.) won't necessarily make one Orthodox.
"I think it's important to keep in mind that it's central thrust is that the manner of baptism normally employed by the Latins at that time (and to this day - pouring water over the forehead) is not acceptable."
I just re-read this article from the Antiochian Bishop BASIL:
"Another extreme is the denial of grace just because of the "form was incorrect" or did not correspond to the teaching or practice of the Orthodox Church. Baptism by immersing in water is the accepted norm because it is the symbol of "being buried with Christ." However, the Church has always accepted a baptism as being with grace in such cases when an immersion was not possible as in the case of illness or just prior to death. A contact with water in any form was acceptable. Every priest knows of such cases, especially with babies. Some Orthodox Churches, such as the Serbian church do not practice full immersion due to historical reasons. No one ever had the idea to say that all Serbians cannot be considered baptized or that they should all be re-baptized."
Now, like I said--and there's more detail here--I think that this issue is more about the number of immersions or pourings than it is about the actual form (i.e., immersion versus pouring or non-full immersion)...the Serbians seem to be respected in their strictness for admission by baptism of most everyone, yet this bishop says they don't fully immerse. Anyone have anything to say to confirm/deny this? What would this say about the need to adhere to immersion only and not pouring?
Post a Comment
<< Home