Why traditionalists Baptize heretics, Split from The OCA

[Seraphim Reeves]

LatinTrad,

Someone's either baptized or they're not. If they are baptized, it is a sacriledge to re-baptize them. If they are not baptized, then they msut be baptized before partaking of Holy Communion.

Similarly, today, the Catholic Church does not re-baptize EO's, OO's or Nestorians who convert. Nor does she re-baptize Protestants from certain groups who did preserve valid baptism. She DOES re-baptize Mormons, however, as well as those Protestants who were not baptized according to the Trinitarian formula.

Look who's preserved the practice of the Early Councils!

The question is not this simplistic though.

Rather than simply make sweeping declarations, I think it would be valuable for the sake of mutual understanding to look at how Roman Catholic and Orthodox understandings of the sacrametns basically differ. While we can historically point to many personalities which have contributed to these differences, for the moment I will simply attempt to state the differences.

In the post-schism Roman church, the view was that grace is a created relationship, between God and a particular soul. In Orthodoxy, as was carefully expounded against the Latinizing opinions of Barlaam (who undoubtedly picked up these ideas from Italian influences), grace is clearly understood to be uncreated; and since only God is "uncreated", this would mean the grace given by the Sacramental rites (which makes them true, holy "mysteries") is an energy of God Himself...an outpouring of His Essence, which is fundamentally unknowable (a proposition which would come to be explicitly rejected by the Latins, most formally in their doctrine of the "beatific vision.")

If one accepts that grace is created (existing commonly as created "helps" or the "graces" spoken of by Roman Catholic teachers...or existing as a "habit" or "state", as it does in the case of the justified, as the same RC authorities would teach), then it is understandable how the Roman Catholic view on the heterodox use of "valid sacramental forms" could come about. According to the RCC, a valid sacrament has to have proper "matter", "form", and "intent". They believe all of these were established by Christ - IOW, they are "God given."

Given this, if it is this "God given form" which is God's ordinary, chosen instrument for "creating" this special "relation" to a particular soul, then it's understandable how one could teach that a "valid sacrament" could exist outside of THE Church (which obviously Roman Catholics identify with their communion.)

OTOH, let us look fairly at the Orthodox position. While it's obvious that the chief sacraments are "established by Christ", this has less emphasis. Rather, the Church Herself, being Christ's Body, is the "Holy Mystery/Sacrament" of God (since Christ, the Incarnate Logos, is the "Sacrament of God".) Strictly speaking then, anything the Church does is "sacramental"; this is why, while some late medieval/modern Orthodox sources will copy the Roman Catholic habit of speaking of "seven sacraments", at best this is an oversimplification which only speaks of the "chief" mysteries. Orthodoxy does not limit this number to "seven", and it cannot - for, like I just conveyed, all of the Church's activities are in favour of the salvation of souls, and communicate grace.

Moreover, this grace, is not (in Orthodox eyes) something "created"; rather, it is an assimilation of God's uncreated energy, unto the salvation of the soul. It is akin to His special presence in the Temple, which Christ is (the True Temple), and which only those who are members of Him can possibly be. Well, those "members of Christ" are what we call the ekklessia, or "the Church."

From this vantage point then, someone mimicking the exterior activities and rites to the Church, cannot have the same value as when the Church does these things. If the Church is the ultimate Holy Mystery (for She is Christ's Body, an extension of Him...branches of the True Vine, filled with the Life bearing "sap"), then the sacramental acts (which are really only a particularization of the entirity for a certain end) will only "do" what they say they "do", when the Church celebrates them. Only the Church, can accept (or expell) individuals - in fact it is for this very reason, that when a Priest (for example) is expelled from his ministry, should he not respect this, his acts are regarded as utterly void; he can no more "confect the Eucharist" (to borrow RC lingo) than he can even offer a Priestly blessing.

All of this helps explain why there is now such a variance between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of the sacraments - for the Orthodox, the sacraments cannot be divorced from their ecclessial context, without doing violence both to their intent, and effect. One cannot be "baptized into the Church" by those who are not acting in Her Name, and who have no interest in doing this to begin with (but rather, at best, initiating them into their own "church").

The Holy and Sixth Ecumenical Council prescribed that Nestorians, Monophysites, and certain other heretics NOT be re-baptized. The only possible coherent explanation is that those groups of heretics had preserved valid baptism (for reasons listed above). This prescription clearly contradicts (and, IMHO trumps) the opinion of St. Basil posted elsewhere on the forum. And it should for you guys too since you think Councils are the highest authority in the Church.

The problem is that your treatment of these canons is not one which takes for granted the mindset of those who formulated them - if it were, it creates an unnecessary contradiction. Why? Because, if we're citing canons/jurisrudence, then we have even older norms for receiving converts from heterodoxy, which are not as lenient...

Canon XLVI: We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

Canon XLVII: Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false. (Apostolic Canons)

Within the Orthodox paradigm, the seeming contradiction between these ancient norms and more lenient methods of receiving converts from heterodoxy, poses no scandal or meaningful contradiction, because the substance remains the same. However, the same cannot be said for the Roman Catholic position - it simply leaves no room for the above norms.

When the Church does choose to be lenient in it's manner of reception, this is due to the perceived benefit, on the part of spiritual pastors, that this will have for the ability of the Church to more readily embrace the heterodox. Generally, "exactitude" is practiced for the same reasons - historically this has been when it was perceived that heretical groups were becoming very aggressive towards the Church, and it was important to draw a very clear line in the sand between the Church, and "not the Church." This is accutely so today, with so much confusion created by the ecumenical movement/agenda, and it's total perversion (within nominal Orthodoxy) of the real meaning of baptismal economy.

I would also like to say this, before concluding this post, to those who think it's simply "impossible" to heal and fill what was lacking in a heterodox baptism, via reception into the Church: can they tell me, really, precisely when someone receives the "infusion of grace" and "remission of sins" associated with Baptism? At which precise moment can this wonderful thing be found? When the Priest finishes the last words of the "baptismal formula"? When he helps the convert out of the Baptismal font? Of course no one can say precisely "when" this occurs...and if they pretend to, we would have every right to say this is just speculation, and has nothing in it's favour that even resembles "proof."

Given this, it strikes me as untrue to say the Church simply cannot complete those things which physically had already been imposed.

When the Church has issued lists then, of those who can be received by "economy", what She is saying at most, "validity" wise of the groups mentioned, is that the valid outward form of the sacraments exists in these groups - thus leaving something for the Church to complete, if this is how She chooses to receive converts. Without this, one could not extend any sort of "economy" as such - there has to be something to "build upon", so to speak.

Seraphim

[Daniel]

Although it would seem to allow something that is objectively immoral--if you take the Cyprianite, or even worse, the Donatist position.

If Bishops are anathema, should they receive those who have been polluted by the impious without baptizing them again, then the Sixth Ecumenical Council is wrong. Period.

Something has to give here. Either the Sixth Ecumenical Council is wrong, or St. Basil is wrong. I go with the Council, because Fathers could and did err, whereas the Church cannot and does not.

This is the 1st Canonical Letter of St. Basil which was ratitfied at the 6th Ecumenical Council. With in the space of one paragraph St. Basil say heretics/schismatics have no baptism, but then he says that the Churches in Asia received them by economy. St. Basil and the 95th Canon from the same council do not contradict one another. I don't know how else to explain it.

As for the Catharoi, they belong to the category of schismatics. Nevertheless it seemed best to the early Fathers (and I mean Cyprian, and our own Firmilian, and their circles) to treat them all—Catharoi, Encratitce, Hydroparastatae, and Apotactitee—in one decision. For the beginning of the separation came about by schism, and those who revolted from the Church no longer possessed the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the imparting thereof ceased with the interruption of the continuity. True, the first ones to depart had had their ordinations from the Fathers, by the imposition of the hands of whom they possessed the spiritual gift. But in breaking away, they became laymen, and thus they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain, since they no longer had the power to grant others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen. Therefore [the early Fathers] ordered that such whom they regarded as having been baptized by laymen, when they come over to the Church, ought to be repurified by the Church’s true baptism. But since it seemed best to some of the [bishops] in Asia to accept their baptism for the sake of the economia of the majority, let it be accepted.

[Mor Ephrem]

Given this, it strikes me as untrue to say the Church simply cannot complete those things which physically had already been imposed.

When the Church has issued lists then, of those who can be received by "economy", what She is saying at most, "validity" wise of the groups mentioned, is that the valid outward form of the sacraments exists in these groups - thus leaving something for the Church to complete, if this is how She chooses to receive converts. Without this, one could not extend any sort of "economy" as such - there has to be something to "build upon", so to speak.

Seraphim

Dear Seraphim,

But why bother with economy at all in this case? Why not allow for no exceptions? The Church may only be saying that the outward form of the "sacrament" validly exists in heterodox groups, and that their "sacraments" are really graceless. But to allow economy in this case as an official policy is confusing, as it seems to recognise that there is something more than valid form there. This, I'm sure you'd agree, is especially the case now, and though my knowledge of history is not as good as yours, I would think this was the case among some in times past. Why allow this practice of economy when it can be so confusing? To give the heterodox the greatest encouragement in joining the Church? Why would it encourage them to join the Church? Because it recognises their baptism and so they wouldn't have to get "rebaptised"? But that is at the expense of the truth. Better to do away with such economy that blurs the truth. And yet, it is to be found even in your ecumenical councils.

I do not know if this is still the case, but I seem to remember hearing that it is/was at one time normal and routine on Mount Athos for a Western convert from Roman Catholicism or Protestantism who was received into Orthodoxy by, for example, the GOA, by chrismation to be baptised on the Holy Mountain before they would be allowed to receive the sacraments there, in spite of the fact that they were accepted by an Orthodox jurisdiction with which they are in communion by an accepted method of economy applied by a bishop. Why?

I (personally) think such a practice is wrong, but I tend to think that they do it because they see the logical conclusion that I am thinking of from the principles I read in your post. The heterodox have graceless sacraments, but maybe a valid form, and so, depending on what kind of heterodox they are, they can be received by economy. But at the very basic level, what you are affirming is that the heterodox person seeking entrance into the Church was never baptised. How, then, can you give sacraments like chrismation to an unbaptised person, and justify that? You need to be baptised before you can receive any other sacrament! All this talk about valid but empty forms is nonsense, in my opinion, if you really believe that at the heart of the matter, the person in question has never been baptised. If you believe that, you must baptise. How can economy in this case ever be justified? And yet, it is allowed, even by ecumenical councils.

So what am I not understanding that would solve the apparent problem I'm having here? Or, perhaps, this hardline view you are defending that at the same time allows for economy is not exactly the Church's view, and is missing details that you are not aware of or (God forbid!) do not want to be aware of?

[Daniel]

But to allow economy in this case as an official policy is confusing, as it seems to recognise that there is something more than valid form there.

When this is really confusing is when you have groups like the OCA who essentially refuse baptism to all most every heretic/schismatic. This is when is seems like they recognizing something more than just 'valid form'.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Mor,

But why bother with economy at all in this case? Why not allow for no exceptions? The Church may only be saying that the outward form of the "sacrament" validly exists in heterodox groups, and that their "sacraments" are really graceless. But to allow economy in this case as an official policy is confusing, as it seems to recognise that there is something more than valid form there.

I don't think the apparent ambiguity you perceive here, is an invalid observation. The biggest reason for allowing this form of leniency, is so as to make it easier for those with a disturbed conscience enter the Church. She's a hospital for sinners, and does not believe conversion is always "Road to Damascus" style in how radical it is - this is particularly the case when the Russians would be receiving significant numbers of former Uniates into Orthodoxy.

When push comes to shove, speaking of heterodox sacraments as being "grace filled" has immediate/unavoidable ecclessiological consequences which are undoubtedly heretical. However, that this issue is now such a bone of contention in the pseudo-Orthodox/Orthodox debate-polemic, is in large part due to the fact that the ecumenists have made it such. When obstinant error rears it's head and makes a banner out of what historically may have not been an issue at the forefront of the simple layman's conscience, the matter tends to become more important than it would have been otherwise.

To give the heterodox the greatest encouragement in joining the Church? Why would it encourage them to join the Church? Because it recognises their baptism and so they wouldn't have to get "rebaptised"? But that is at the expense of the truth.

As many on a certain other forum have been fond of pointing out, beating someone over the head with something is not always the best way to get a hold of them - I would submit this is the case sometimes, even when what is being used to "beat" them, is in fact true. Of course, I would also argue that when someone becomes obstinant in a mistaken view, then stronger words and actions become necessary.

If someone comes to the Church, which possess the plenitude of grace and of Holy Tradition, implicit to such an action is their acknowledgment that the Orthodox Church is the "true Church", and they perceive their need to come to Her. Yet, we know that people are tempted to all sorts of scruples...and the Church, when She can, in so far as She can, will accomodate them, so as to not create unnecessary scandal in these weaker brethren.

I do not know if this is still the case, but I seem to remember hearing that it is/was at one time normal and routine on Mount Athos for a Western convert from Roman Catholicism or Protestantism who was received into Orthodoxy by, for example, the GOA, by chrismation to be baptised on the Holy Mountain before they would be allowed to receive the sacraments there, in spite of the fact that they were accepted by an Orthodox jurisdiction with which they are in communion by an accepted method of economy applied by a bishop. Why?

While I do not have a definitive answer to this, I will say that one should not be surprised that things are done sometimes, in some places, by a zeal that is not according to knowledge - perhaps correct according to their accepted practice, but failing to see the larger picture.

I would also submit it's possible that some of the confusion is a result of a real disagreement over whether or not the Papists still maintain something resembling the proper form of baptism. It creates for an admittedly, sticky situation.

But at the very basic level, what you are affirming is that the heterodox person seeking entrance into the Church was never baptised. How, then, can you give sacraments like chrismation to an unbaptised person, and justify that?

If you're asking this, I think it's safe to say you have not understood me so far (or I simply have failed to make my thoughts clear.) The act of receiving them, with Chrism (much like how apostates are received back into the Church), is what completes and heals their previous heterodox "baptism" - the real waters, receive real Grace.

You need to be baptised before you can receive any other sacrament! All this talk about valid but empty forms is nonsense, in my opinion, if you really believe that at the heart of the matter, the person in question has never been baptised.

You assert it, but you do nothing to demonstrate this.

If you believe that, you must baptise. How can economy in this case ever be justified? And yet, it is allowed, even by ecumenical councils.

Because in an exoteric sense, the baptism is "valid" - everything exterior (which the heterodox certainly possess) is there, it's real, it really happened.

So what am I not understanding that would solve the apparent problem I'm having here? Or, perhaps, this hardline view you are defending that at the same time allows for economy is not exactly the Church's view, and is missing details that you are not aware of or (God forbid!) do not want to be aware of?

Perhaps...in which case you should have no problem providing me with Patristic witness to the Life-bestowing nature of heterodox sacraments.

Seraphim

[LatinTrad]

in which case you should have no problem providing me with Patristic witness to the Life-bestowing nature of heterodox sacraments.

Seraphim

Seraphim, as you yourself have pointed out with those quotations of Aquinas, valid Sacraments do not always bestow life. Objectively speaking, it is a sacrilege to perform valid sacraments outside the Church. Nevertheless, if someone is not culpable, they can receive the life-giving effects of the Sacrament, as well as the Sacramental character which is given ex opere operato. Once the indelible character has been given, the person cannot receive that Sacrament again. (The Sacraments that give an indelible character are Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders).

If a baby is baprized outside the Church, provided that what was done was actually baptism, (Trinitarian formula, immersion/aspersion/infusion with H2O) that baby is not culpable for the schismatic nature of his baptism. He is given new life.

If, on the other hand, I go to a schismatic Church and knowingly receive Holy Communion, I have received the Boby and Blood of Chrict--but I have done violence to Him, and it avails me nothing unto eternal life.

See the difference between the validity and the life-giving nature of the Sacraments?

St. Augustine said "Since we find non-Catholic things within the Catholic Church, should it surprise us to find Catholic things outside the Catholic Church?"

In Christ,

LT

[Mor Ephrem]

As many on a certain other forum have been fond of pointing out, beating someone over the head with something is not always the best way to get a hold of them - I would submit this is the case sometimes, even when what is being used to "beat" them, is in fact true. Of course, I would also argue that when someone becomes obstinant in a mistaken view, then stronger words and actions become necessary.

Beating someone over the head is not always the best way to get a hold of them, you're right. But there is a difference between a certain way of speaking and baptism.

If someone comes to the Church, which possess the plenitude of grace and of Holy Tradition, implicit to such an action is their acknowledgment that the Orthodox Church is the "true Church", and they perceive their need to come to Her. Yet, we know that people are tempted to all sorts of scruples...and the Church, when She can, in so far as She can, will accomodate them, so as to not create unnecessary scandal in these weaker brethren.

What scandal? The truth that they are indeed unwashed in the saving waters of baptism? Why should the Church, to whom they are coming of their own free will, worry about the scandal that truth would cause to them, if they are seeking her out? Should they not accept the Church on its own terms?

If you're asking this, I think it's safe to say you have not understood me so far (or I simply have failed to make my thoughts clear.) The act of receiving them, with Chrism (much like how apostates are received back into the Church), is what completes and heals their previous heterodox "baptism" - the real waters, receive real Grace.

But since when do forms attain such importance without substance? If someone is being received into the Church by chrismation, you are saying it "completes and heals" their previous "baptism". But if their previous "baptism" was meaningless, why wouldn't you baptise?

You need to be baptised before you can receive any other sacrament! All this talk about valid but empty forms is nonsense, in my opinion, if you really believe that at the heart of the matter, the person in question has never been baptised.

You assert it, but you do nothing to demonstrate this.

I asserted my opinion based on the fact that you cannot receive any other sacrament before you have been baptised. What Church teaches otherwise? Would ROAC, for example, commune me? It regards me as unbaptised, after all.

If you believe that, you must baptise. How can economy in this case ever be justified? And yet, it is allowed, even by ecumenical councils.

Because in an exoteric sense, the baptism is "valid" - everything exterior (which the heterodox certainly possess) is there, it's real, it really happened.

I still don't understand why this matters at all if the baptism in question is no more holy than being thrown into a public swimming pool thrice.

Perhaps...in which case you should have no problem providing me with Patristic witness to the Life-bestowing nature of heterodox sacraments.

My knowledge and time to read the Fathers and see what they have to say on this subject is limited, and I would do a disservice in attempting it now. Besides, if heterodox sacraments have no grace, and such is defendable from the patristic witness, it doesn't harm my original point. I still don't get how exterior validity is enough of a justification for allowing heterodox people to be received into the Church in any way other than by baptism, if that exteriorly valid baptism is as grace filled as a bubble bath.