Merely speculation here (after some further thought). Perhaps in Gaul and some other places, the position here held to by St. Vincent was correct; while in other places, a different view was held to. The situation would then perhaps be similar to that of the celebration of Pascha in the early Church (where the Orientals had a different understanding than, for instance, Rome). It is true that Saint Vincent's Commonitory is constantly used and cited as a foundation stone for the concept of Tradition, but it might help to remember that even his most famous phrase ("that which was believed...") must be used with some degree of clarification, or at least it must be more expansively defined (as Florovsky, Lossky, etc. did in their works)--and couldn't be used as a proof-text to articulate Church belief as though it was the end all by itself.
St.Vincent of Lerins - Comments?
-
Seraphim Reeves
- Member
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
- Location: Canada
Justin,
I'm increasingly willing to accept the opinion that this is a case of differing degrees of theological penetration (and plain ole' differences in expression) coming together to create a situation in which some Fathers ended up talking past each other.
In general, the west did not have the same penetration of the trancendent elements of Orthodox teaching that you'd find with many Eastern Fathers (a generalization, but I think an accurate one.) Even when discussing triadology, the Latins tended to be far more concerned with the practical/economic dimension of this than the more trancendent aspects (thus why heretical filioquism found a home in the west - since many Latin Fathers often spoke in a way that only very vaguely differentiated between the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from God the Father, and the economic "procession" of the Holy Spirit through God the Son, which the Eastern Fathers always recognized).
In this case, the problem seems to be a confusion between canonical norms regarding the exoteric/ritual validity of certain heretical baptisms (which allowed for their subsequent "energization" and validation by the Church, via the reception of converts by "economy"), and the actual "genuine" character of said heterodox baptisms of themselves. In reality, I think the confusion had more to do with the Carthaginian change in pastoral policy on this subject (refusing to receive any converts via economy), than with the theology and particular circumstances behind this change. For I recall Pope St.Leo saying explicitly of the Monophysites, that the "divine light" had left them, and that they have no genuine Priesthood or Holy Oblation; yet we know full well that the Latins of this period were dead set against the type of pastoral policy put into effect by St.Cyril and those who were of his mindset on the subject.
Perhaps the only real point of contradiction then, if you widdle away all of the misunderstandings, is the charge of "sacrelige" made by some Latins. The basis for this charge, was a confusion (on their part) between the attempt to repeat the "grace of Baptism" so to speak, and the repetition of extrinsically "valid" baptismal rites. The primitive statements of the Church on this subject, including the Scriptures are clear - to genuinely Baptize someone twice (two Orthodox Baptisms, as the Donatists advocated) is sacreligious. It would seem there is a confusion between "valid rite" (which can exist outside of the Church) and "Orthodox Baptism."
I'm not sure if that makes sense, but it is ultimatly the only satisfying answer I can come to. The other option (opted for by the St.Vlad's types and similar modernists) is to simply become dismissive - not only of individual Church Fathers, but even of the actual history of the Church (where during different periods, for centuries on end, the Church excercised exactitude in the case of heterodox converts - including the Russians, who were doing this in regard to the Roman Catholics at least by the 1200's, and who only decisively discontinued this practice in the late 1600's for various pastoral/political reasons.) IOW, there is the view of the so called "extremists" (like you and me), and there is the view of the ecumenically inclined, which basically amounts to saying that the Orthodox Church was nearly universal for several centuries, in the official practice of blasphemy and sacrelige..
Seraphim
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Seraphim,
This is what I get for "breezing through" a subject like this - this is now the second time I misunderstood the question...
You said:
It would seem there is a confusion between "valid rite" (which can exist outside of the Church) and "Orthodox Baptism."
I'm not sure I would agree with this. From what I have read of Stephen's arguments, he clearly seems to consider that baptism is neither dependent on the officiating priest (or "priest"), nor on the receiver, but solely on Christ. He considered heretical baptism real provided it was administered with intention to baptize and in the right form.
It seems to me Stephen was saying they are not baptized by heretics, but are baptized by Christ in spite of them. This is somewhat different than what is preached today.
I believe Stephen is in direct opposition to the Apostolic canons and was promoting error even in his own time - the culmination of which was an anathema in the Council of Trent against St. Cyprian's practice.
-
Seraphim Reeves
- Member
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
- Location: Canada
OOD,
Whenever I am trying to evaluate the Western church, I have the mindset that the Western church is never the same consideration from century to century.
I think your observations are on the right track.
The first Pope to make explicit claims to a unique Petrine dynasty was Pope Damasus towards the end of the fourth century. Previous to this time, the honours poured upon the Church of Rome by various Fathers were related not simply to Her Apostolic heritage (which interestingly, they emphasized to be as much "Pauline" as "Petrine"), but also to the copious amount of sacred blood shed upon Her soil by martyrs born both within Her vicinity, and countless martyrs from throughout the world (St.Ignatios comes immediately to mind - he wrote his famous Epistles while being transported to Rome as a prisoner) who came to glorify God by their confession in such martyrdom.
Perhaps the best appraisal, most representative "pre-Nicean" (often misunderstood to poor/biased translations) appraisal of Rome, comes from St.Irenaeos, who praised the Roman Church precisely because of Her catholicity - that is to say, She was a repository of the true faith, for She received the witnesses of all of the Churches of God throughout the world. Thus in a sense, Her heritage was not something all of Her own, but a reflection of the entire Christian race.
I don't think it can be underemphasized, the importance of the relatively late "first appearance" of Roman claims to a unique Petrine legacy/dynasty of Bishops.
It's an unfortunate phenomenon in the life of the Church (and one which She has never been totally without from my reading - for sadly, sin has not ceased to exist in Her members, including heirarchs) that often episcopal see's which had come to be regarded (by a natural, uncontrived process) as "Metropolises" or even major centers (later canonically termed "Patriarchates"), would eventually do whatever they could to secure this status, whenever anything would happen elsewhere that somehow resulted in the diminishing of their importance. This is manifested in our day by "world Orthodoxy" in the Americas, where various overlapping juristictions exist, all ultimatly doing so, because their "mother churches" abroad do not want to lose the income and influence which comes from these "assets" in the Americas, not to mention what they perceive would happen to their overal status in the big scheme of things, should an unambiguously "American Church" emerge.
I think the begining of Rome's extraordinary claims are connected to the obvious decline of the western portion of the Empire, and the removal of the chief Imperial Throne to Constantinople.
The claims of Pope Damasus, compared to those of later Popes, were quite modest. He did not claim "universal juristiction" as would eventually be claimed towards the end of the millenia by the Popes. He simply insisted that the priveleges outlined by the Council of Nicea, and regarded as a matter of custom in regard to the standing of the Roman Church, were ultimatly not do to something bestowed by the mind of the Church and bolstered by canonical guarantees - rather, that they were of Apostolic foundation, indeed something by Divine right.
Some of the best exposition of this topic that I've seen, are the writings of the late Fr.John Romanides. He makes a very good case that these claims eventually were not simply attempts to bolster the importance of the Roman See against changing political fortunes in the Empire - they were also an attempt to protect the Roman Church (and the Roman population now under the captivity of the Franks) from the machinations of their Frankish rulers. By loudly announcing their privileges, they were able (for a time) to keep eager Germanic lords' (who were already actively removing, even by murder, Orthodox Roman Bishops in other parts of the west, and replacing them with men who were little more than feudal princes) hands off the Papacy itself. He even puts forward a good case, that the spurious "Donation of Constantine" may itself have been the result of Western-Eastern Roman colaboration, an attempt to keep the barbarians from molesting the Roman Popes.
Unfortunately, this posturing eventually failed, Franks did come to occupy the Papal Throne, and these "solutions" it would seem only worsened the problem (since they were taken as "gospel" by the Franks, who never doubted their authenticity, and served as a basis for them to make even bolder claims to juristiction and authority.)
In addition to these gradual corruptions of the ecclessial consciousness of the westerners, is the fallout of Western Christendom's falling away from the Greek language/thought paradigms which remained in tact in the Christian East (which remained in tact, interestingly enough, not simply amongst those Churches which retained the use of the Greek language itself, but those peoples, such as the Orthodox Slavs, who would also manage to assimilate this same thought world into their own language and culture - though it's worth noting, Church Slavonic itself, is essentially the Macedonian Slavic tongue, given a fundamentally Greek alphabet).
I think this explains some of the "superficiality" I had mentioned previously. Much like the "pseudomorphosis" of Russian (and in some cases, even Greek) Orthodox theological discourse which occured in the centuries leading up to our own age, something similar (perhaps even worthy of the same title, but owing to different circumstances) began to occur in the Christian west, due to a linguistic/thought-paradigm shift (the two often cannot help but go together) which was further fed by a general decline in learning, and as time progressed, a dirth of insight into the teachings of the Fathers in general.
The unfortunate difference, however, between this case of "pseudomorphosis" and that of the post 17th century Russians, is that this spiritual and intellectual "alienation" only continued to grow worse with time, aggrivated by incredible political/social pressures - growing to the point that an entirely alien spirituality took root in the west, eventually displacing (often through violence) what remained of the "Orthodox phronema." I think this explains not only the growth of "Papism" as such (the change in western ecclessiology), but also the change in the general theological perspective of the westerners, which would end (about the time of the schism) with the flowering of what we now call "scholasticism" (which embodies not only particular teachings, but even a basic mindset and attitude towards what "theology" in fact "is" that is entirely alien to the mindset of the Church Fathers and the "Eastern Church" to this day.)
This change manifested itself in all sorts of ways, ultimatly nothing was left untouched by it. Even the liturgical issues which would ultimatly be a source of division between the west and the east leading up to the formal schism of 1054, manifest this change - and it is equally clear who the "changing" party in all of them (for the Romans used to use leavened bread in their Eucharist, they also had an Epiklesis in their Mass, their clergy were once bearded, they too once ordained married men to the Priesthood, etc.)
Now that I think about it, I sense that there perhaps is a connection (at least on a primitive level) between the dropping of the Epiklesis from the Roman Mass well before 1054, and the different attitude the Latin mindset (which as you rightly point out, is perhaps different than the western Greek-speaking Roman-Orthodox mindset) began to develop in regard to the issue of Baptism (at least in regard to the heterodox.)
As Roman Catholic sacremental teaching now stands, they've come to the belief that the "validity" (understood to mean "a real sacrament") of the Eucharist is centered, ultimatly, in the "form" used in the "words of institution" (which is now understood to be the essential "consecratory formula" for the Holy Oblation). The Orthodox understanding, OTOH, while not as narrow, basically says that this is effected by invoking of the Holy Spirit (in the Epiklesis), Who transforms the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of the Lord.
This doesn't seem to just be a difference over the "when" (Latins - change occurs during he "words of institution", Orthodox - change occurs during the Epiklesis), but also a not so subtle difference in the "how". The Orthodox understanding is ultimatly a prayerful one - a case of the Priest asking God to do what is humanly impossible (very much like the Prophet Elijah calling down the Holy Fire, which consumed the offerings he had set before the unbelieving Israelites and their pagan priests). This doesn't, of course, mitigate the importance of using the traditional, apostolic "forms" of the sacraments (this is indispensable, obviously.) But it is quite different than the Latin attitude, which eventually (by the time of scholasticism to be sure, if not well beforehand) essentially understood this miraculous change to be the result of some autonomous force invested in the sacramental rite itself (so long as all of the right "ingredients" are present - valid "form, matter, and intent") - an understanding which is ultimatly individualistic, and begins to remove the celebration of the Mysteries (or at least their grace bearing, fruitful celebration) from an ecclessial context.
It is not a stretch then, to see that such an understanding of the basic "efficacy" or "operation" of the Sacraments, could result in confusion over the "genuiness" of said Sacraments when celebrated by those who are aliens to the communion of the Orthodox Church. The confusion only increases, when such a mindset looks upon the traditional economy practiced by the Church in regard to the reception of converts from some schismatical/heretical groups; it will inadvertantly read an import into such receptions which is really not there.
When thinking of this subject (it's really broader than any particular point, even the topic of how Baptism was understood), it brings a sobering, and somewhat discouraging thought (regarding the very possibility of the Roman Catholic Church ever being corporately received back into Orthodoxy) - the spiritual/mental "shift" which is ultimatly responsible for all of the "particulars" which divide Roman Catholicism from Orthodoxy is something which has been growing/evolving not simply for the last 1000 years, but has it's roots even earlier than this (beginning with the rapid decline, and fall of the western portion of the Empire.) As such, for a real healing of the ruins of western Christendom, we are not simply talking about reform of this or that doctrine, but a complete transformation of their entire way of thinking, even the most basic assumptions of what "salvation" or "the spiritual life" amount to.
Seraphim
seraphim reeves wrote:But it is quite different than the Latin attitude, which eventually (by the time of scholasticism to be sure, if not well beforehand) essentially understood this miraculous change to be the result of some autonomous force invested in the sacramental rite itself (so long as all of the right "ingredients" are present - valid "form, matter, and intent").
Where the heck do you get this nonsense? Do you make it up or did you read it on the internet somewhere?
"AUTONOMOUS FORCE"??????????????????????????????? 
Autonomous force . . . that's a great . . . a great STRAWMAN!!!!
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath