Be baptised and chrismated, or just chrismated?

[Scamandrius]

Greetings all.

I'm new to the board and I thought this would be a good place to get some answers. I have been on the jouurney for several months now and, assuming that Christ preserves me, I will be chrismated on Great and Holy Saturday. However, in much of my reading, I have read that there is controversy regarding the reception of converts into the fullness of the faith, specifically about whether one's prior baptism in a schismatic church, even if it was Trinitarian, is invalid and the seeker must not only be chrismated but also rebaptized. I have read that the OCA, in general, has generally practiced oikoumeneand considered the seal of chrismation sufficient. If anyone has better insight into the theology surrounding this issue and some good advice as to how I should approach this, I'd much appreciate it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

However, in much of my reading, I have read that there is controversy regarding the reception of converts into the fullness of the faith, specifically about whether one's prior baptism in a schismatic church, even if it was Trinitarian, is invalid and the seeker must not only be chrismated but also rebaptized. I have read that the OCA, in general, has generally practiced oikoumeneand considered the seal of chrismation sufficient. If anyone has better insight into the theology surrounding this issue and some good advice as to how I should approach this, I'd much appreciate it.

There are two basic ways in which people are being received into Orthodoxy: through baptism or by chrismation. It is correct that the difference is often jurisdictional. In jurisdictions such as the OCA it is much more common to be received by chrismation if one was previously baptised in the name of the Trinity. In other jurisdictions such as ROCOR it is much more common to be received by baptism. In both jurisdictions however there are exceptions to the rule since in any case the final decision is always a pastoral one based on the situation of the individual.

The story of why there is such a divide is long and complicated but theologically the OCA keeps to the Russian practice of the 17th- 19th centuries in which it was felt that economia should be generally applied to Christians of other denominations. ROCOR in the 1980s changed to the alternative traditional practice of baptism due to the fact that a contemporary Christian is often not like a Christian of the 19th century spiritually and morally so that it is felt the economia of the recent past is more to a person's harm than help.

How such a fundamental division arose within Orthodoxy is part and parcel of the divisions and disputes of the 20th century. The calendar, how non-Orthodox should be received into the Church, how Orthodox Christians should relate to the modern world and many other issues regarding the tradition of the Church came to be a source of great contention throughout the 20th century and this came to divide the Church.

In both cases it is very important to understand that the theology of the Church is that sacraments are found within the Church so that the main question is how one applies economia & not just whether a baptism is 'valid' or not outside of the Church. This is important because if looked at carefully one can see that the two different ways in which people are received really comes down to a question of the best way in which economia should be applied in the present day world.

A very important connected question that needs further consideration is the relationship of sacraments to the spiritual/moral life (praxis). In discussions about 'validity' of sacraments it often seems as if the necessary connection to the spiritual life is left out. This is certainly not a Patristic perspective- eg St Symeon the New Theologian who always ties the two together. Both laity and even priests at times do not recognise how much of this is a pastoral decision that very much hinges on the spiritual life of the person coming to be received into the Church.

Thankfully we now see much more unity than in the past. This is because there is now much more agreement about the basic tradition of the Church. There is however still a basic difference in pastoral practice between the jurisdictions- partly for perfectly acceptable reasons; but also partly because the contentious issues of the past gradually came to be defining characteristics of different jurisdictions that are difficult to detach from. If we can go forward as the One Church of Christ then it could be at least in some measure that the things which in the past divided us could be the very things which complement each of us.

A last word about the above post. Plans already have been made as to when and how you are being received into the Church. In general the safest way is to keep to the 'rule' of the parish in which one is being received. For any questions we may have we should always remember that our life in the Church is an ongoing one in which grace upon grace is added as part of our life in Christ. There was always some sort of deficiency- something missing- in the past (and in the present also!); this does not make our life in the Church 'not valid' since Christ's grace precisely is there to compensate for weakness.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scamandrius]

Bless, Father Raphael:

Thank you for your helpful response. I suppose that my post sounded like someone who thinks he knows better than his priest or the church for that matter as to have doubts as to whether chrismation was sufficient. But you put it very well in that "...Christ's grace precisely is there to compensate..." It is best to always remember that.

Glory to our Lord, Jesus Christ!

[Edward Henderson]

Dear Scamandrius,

I do not wish to judge or invalidate those that have been received into the Church by chrismation, but Baptism is the proper manner to receive Latins and Protestants. It is the practice of the most of the SCOBA jurisdictions to chrismate Protestants and Latins if their "baptism" was done three times, invocing the Trinity, and with water. However, the experience of baptism in the Orthodox Church is different than in other Church, as is the purpose behind it. There are so many different Protestant baptismal theologies but the Latins believe it delivers the soul from the stain of original sin. But for the Orthodox, apart from indicating ones initiation into the Church, it brings the believer into the second stage of the Christian life, illumination. This is why we baptise infants, not because they are inherently evil or sinful, but because they are pure and worthy of illumination.

I would suggest reading, "I Confess One Baptism" by Father George Mellitinos, a Priest in the Church of Greece. Second, try and find a text of the baptismal ceremony of the Orthodox Church. If you read it, you will find yourself asking, do I really want to deny myself this?

While, the SCOBA jurisdictions tend to baptise, I have found that if the catechuman insists on reception by baptism, they will do it. Remember, their "apology" is that they are using economia when chrismating. So demand acrivia or strictness. If you are baptised, you can be 100% sure that your reception into the Church was correct and canonical. If you ever go to Mount Athos, or Father Ephraim's monasteries, or even to some of the Orthodox countries, you may find yourself denied communion based on the fact that you were only chrismated. I know on Mount Athos, they will offer to baptise you even if you have already been chrismated and are participating in Church life.
Finally, if anybody says, 'it's no big deal', then you can always reply, 'if it is no big deal then baptise me!'

Edward

[Alec Lowly]

Thank you, Father Raphael, for your illuminating post. I seem to remember reading that baptized Arians were received into Orthodoxy by chrismation. Is that so? And if that were the case for such arch-heretics, how can baptism be required of Latin and Protestant converts today?

In XC,
Alec, sinner

[Olga]

I may be incorrect in this, but it is my understanding that it is not the position for a catechumen to "demand" baptism or chrismation, rather it is up to the priest who is to perform the rite, who, in many cases, has either followed his jurisdiction's "rule" on the matter, or has consulted his bishop for advice and guidance. It does not seem to me to be right that laity can "override" properly informed and instructed clergy on such a crucial and fundamental matter, it smacks of hubris. I would be happy to be corrected on this view.

[Klod]

A good article about this topic you may find here (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html)


There should not be comparison between roman catholics and evangelicals, who like to convert into orthodoxy!



Is not a correct thing to say that because roman catholics look at baptism from the original sin point of view, their baptism is incorrect.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

I would like to state that both Fr. Raphel's and Olga's posts represent my view.

Yet, I believe Orthodoxy is the Church of Christ. Protestant and Latin confessions have very certainly changed with the passage of the years.

I was raised in the Anglican (Episcoplian) Church in the 50's. Is it the same confession today?

In the 50's, even the 60's, did the Anglican body have women priests, or now such incredible spectacles of ordaining an openly homosexual priest to the rank of Bishop, while at the same time continuing to commit and live with his partner in sexual union? (Whilst in England recently, there is a very serious movement towards women Bishops.) Is this the Tradition of the Church?

Do we know that if a candidate for Priesthood in the Orthodox Church, chooses to be a married priest, that if his wife dies three seconds after the ordination, he must remain celibate the rest of his life, to maintain his Priesthood? What if the marriage is of a longer duration and children come as a blessing? The married Priest must raise his children alone.

There is only One Church. Accept it or not.

Finally, after many years, though not being a Priest, I would counsel Baptism.

[Klod]

Will we baptize a former born uniate, i.e a eastern catholic person who wants to join the orthodox church, or for that matter someone who first joined the eastern catholic church by baptism and then decided to join the orthodox church?



Would we have baptized Mother Theresa, if she, for certain reasons, would have joined the orthodox church?



In face of the fact the two patriarchs, that of Constantinople, Athenagoras, and that of Rome, Paul VI, invalidated the anathemas of 1054, are we going to say that Athenagoras dealed with a non-christian person at all, if we consider that pope Paul VI was baptized as a roman catholic, so that Athenagoras action are completely in vain, and that he shouldnt even bother about it?


If he considered Paul the VI as patriarch of west descending from the authority of the pope at the time prior to 1054, then he surely considered him a christian with a valid baptism and sacraments.





Therefore I say, there is no comparison between roman catholics and evangelicals!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I believe that how Christians are received into Orthodoxy mostly comes down to discernment and that past precedent -as for example found in the canons- testifies to different practices. What we do know for example is that we are given the options of confession of the Faith (as was used for Uniates for example at one time), chrismation and Baptism. Of course for the sake of consistency & also as a basic guideline national churches have often followed certain general practices of reception while others followed other practices. But these are known to have been general guidelines that at the end of the day must be applied with discernment. This is the only way after all to understand the fact that these standards have varied within each church over time.

As I said in my previous post one of my concerns is that resulting from past disputes over these questions jurisdictions have become characterised by how they receive people- some strict, some less so. Probably there is some very good point to all of this but I do pray that one day we may return to what seems the more traditional way- which is that along with general guidelines provided by our Church we are encouraged to employ that freedom which discernment requires rather than having our choice so strongly influenced by jurisdictional 'brand-name'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Edward Henderson]

First of all, Patriarch Athenagoras had no authority lifting the anathemas and his actions are no recognized by the whole Church. In regard to receiving Latins into the Church, initially they were received by chrismation but, as their theology and liturgical practices strayed further away from Orthodoxy, it became the practice to baptise them. What the Church Fathers tend to say is that if the rite of Baptism by a heretical or schimatic group is the same or very similar to the Orthodox rite, then they can be received by chrismation. In the case of Uniates, their rites were the same as the Orthodox. In fact, in many villages where the parish was uniate, the people still called themselves Orthodox. Often the Priest only commemorated his local bishop and the Latin Pope was only commemorated at the cathedral. The people were often not aware of this. A good fried of mine's grandmother was born in Belorus in a village that often found it either on the territory of Russia or Poland. She was baptised Uniate but thought herself Orthodox, and when she emigrated to America she only went to the Orthodox Church. She raised her children Orthodox. When she reposed, her family was able to find the parish where she was baptised, which is now Orthodox again and their archives revealed she had a baptismal certificate in Latin.

Now the Uniates are quite aware of their affiliation, but that was not always the case.
So, yes there are cases for reception by chrismation. Unfortunately, this economia has become the standard practice in North America. But Orthodoxy is about fullness not minimalism. We cannot escape the reality that the Orthodox experience of baptism is different than that of the Latins or Protestants. One only needs to read the service books to see that clearly. It is not just the baptism itself but the prayers read, the exorcisms, the renunciation of Satan, the anointing with oil, then the actually baptism (triple immersion not just pouring or sprinking or single immersion), and after that chrismation. There is the experience of wearing the baptismal garment for the first week of Church services and experiencing illumination. There are great blessings that come with an Orthodox baptism. That does not deny that those who are just chrismated are Orthodox or in the Church or are capable of sanctity. The New Martyrs Alexandra and Elizabeth came into the Church from Lutheranism by chrismation as did Father Seraphim Rose.

But that does not negate the importance of reception by baptism. God can work around human error even at the hands of Church hierarchs and priests.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Forgive me Klod, but I humbly suggest that the real issue here is LOVE.

Baptism of Roman Catholics and Protestants (amongst whom are Evangelicals) is a large topic (and a very hot discussion in many places, for example Mount Athos). In many ways I do not want to wander into it.
That is why I underlined Olga's and Fr. Raphael's responses as excellent answers.

As for your examples: Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and the Ecumenical Patriarch meeting Pope Paul V1, are you truly seeing the complete picture?
I do not want, at this moment, due to my illness, to invoke the extreme division this meeting and 'lifting' of anathemas caused in the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Philaret's 'Sorrowful Epistles' should certainly be read concerning this matter.
Mother Teresa is universally loved, but so is the Dalai Lama.

As for the Uniate Church, both you and I (yourself in Albania, and I for two years in Romania) what can I say Klod?

The entire wilting ecumenical dialoque between Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church is blocked by the very existence of the Uniate Church.

Seeking Saint Silouan's advice is the best solution for me. That is, love for enemies, and seeking the humility of Christ.

But I can say without hesitation, for Saint Silouan the Athonite the only Church is the Orthodox Church.

How each person is received into Orthodoxy I leave in the hands of the Bishops and Parish Priests.

[Klod]

The truth is that the church will have always two co-existed opinions on such matters. One party being more strickt, and the other more so to say open.


My simple concern is supposedly that if God has accepted someone's baptism outside the orthodox church, e.g in latin church, when that person wants to join the orthodoxy, the eagerness to re-baptise him wouldnt that be a great offence for Christ, knowing that baptism cannot be neither repeated, nor ridiculed!



Fr. Seraphim greetings from me! (so do the others as well)

[Alec Lowly]

Edward Henderson writes:

"There are great blessings that come with an Orthodox baptism. That does not deny that those who are just chrismated are Orthodox or in the Church or are capable of sanctity. The New Martyrs Alexandra and Elizabeth came into the Church from Lutheranism by chrismation as did Father Seraphim Rose."

True and true. But the examples you cite cut the ground right from beneath your feet. If people received by chrismation only can join the ranks of the glorified, it should be obvious that reception by chrismation only is grace-bearing.

"First of all, Patriarch Athenagoras had no authority lifting the anathemas and his actions are not recognized by the whole Church.":

A patriarch of Constantinople certainly has the authority to lift an anathema pronounced by a patriarch of Constantinople. To deny this is to deny the integrity of the Church of Constantinople as a church of Christ. It is effectively a denial of koinonia. That the revocation of the anathema is not "recognized by the whole Church" is irrelevant. Constantinople can loose what Constantinople bound.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Douglas R Gwinn]

> Never tried posting before so we'll see if this works. As a new =20 > Antiochan Orthodox catechumen who has been baptized twice already I =20=

> have been following this thread with great interest! My Dad who had =20=

> a PhD in New Testament and spent most of his life as a college =20 > professor, and was a remarkable Christian, was also a Presbyterian =20 > pastor and baptized me as an infant (Presbyterian sprinkling). In =20 > medical school, in a house church, I decided I wanted to be re-=20 > baptized by immersion as a believer and asked him to do it. His =20 > greatness is illustrated by the fact that although he thought it =20 > unnecessary, and that I did not understand John Knox's covenant =20 > theology of baptism, there was also nothing in Presbyterian polity =20 > that said he couldn't and therefore if it was important to me he =20 > would be happy to do it. Fast forward to now. I was dunked thrice, =20 > and therefore in our jurisdiction I probably don't need to be =20 > baptized again. My priest, however, is conservative and thinks it =20 > would be better to be baptized again. My sponsor, a friend who is a =20=

> former Protestant pastor and now Orthodox priest and who bears most =20=

> of the responsibility for my being in this predicament, did NOT get =20=

> re-baptized and regrets it. If I will now, through baptism really =20 > be joined to Christ, and be illumined, and get whatever other =20 > blessing coming that I do not yet understand, why would I NOT want =20 > to be baptized a third time? My wife is in the same "fix" and we =20 > are both going for the whole enchilada! The only reason not to =20 > would be pride (that makes a lot of sense), and potentially =20 > offending my parents, which will not now happen since they are =20 > reposed and hopefully have it all figured out. Doug

[Klod]

Strictly speaking, from the so called conservative point of view, there could not be an union council between east and west, since, if we believe that west (latins) has fallen away and that there is no church in them, then, there cannot be undertaken such an effort as to unite two parts, while one of them doesnt constitute a part any longer, but the only way to reunion would be a rebaptism of the entire west from pope down to the last roman catholic into the orthodox church.



That is the way the logic makes us think, if we see the western latins as an invalid movement under the name of a christian church.



Interesting enough, I have never witnessed in history an occasion when the conservative party would treat in this way an effort for unification.



The fact that there have been councils of union means that even the conservative party, by accepting in holding a meeting with the, what would be in their eyes, heretics, treated them (the heretics) as an existing church, otherwise the meeting would have been pointless, or would have been the same as if holding a council with atheists to unite in one faith!!!


The way for a non-christian to join the church is only through baptism, and if the western church would be considered as completely fallen way, i.e a non-christian human organization, then, not a council, but only the invitation to get rebaptized in the orthodox church, may be discussed!



At the same time, had the western latins, at one point, e.g at Lyon or Florence, accepted the orthodox point of view, I do not think that the final step of finalizing the union would have been rebaptism of the west, since the generation of that time in west were born in Scism with the orthodox church.
No, if the west would have agreed with orthodoxy, the finalization of the union would have been done by an act of common proclamation of faith.



As I said, that is not the case with evangelicals, since they have gone too far, denying almost each basic of faith, from holy communion down to the communion of saints, church structure etc.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Klod, Fr. Raphael and others,

It looks like we are in for another long thread!
May I be permitted to take the issue of the method of reception out of the hands of Bishops, qualified theologians and monastics for the moment. I will return to monastics and others of ordained Church status within the Orthodox Church at a later date.

For Klod the continuing point is his insistence on seeing the Latins/Roman Catholics/Uniates as being a different entity than the various Protestant denominations and Evangelicals. Therefore, he urges us (with very good intention) to separate the Latin from the Protestant world and as a consequence the way of entry into the Orthodox Church.

Briefly mentioning the opening paragraphs of (then Timothy Ware) and now Bishop Kallistos Ware's excellent book 'The Orthodox Church', does he not state that it may come as a surprise to learn that for the Orthodox the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches are two sides of the same coin?

I have permitted myself this minor movement of emphasis as Bishop Kallistos was a layman when he wrote this book.

Let us remember that in the Orthodox Church, lay people are not inferior to our Bishops and Priests, but constitute the Royal Priesthood.

This is what I would like to first concentrate on, that is, the understanding of Faith and defence of it by the laity, the Royal Priesthood.

I am not an expert in Church History, but the Council of Florence and the very high degree of sanctity seen in St. Mark of Ephesus, and the laitys' response to the outcome of this particular Council leads to what I want to point out.

Having lived by God's unfathomable Providence in every country from India, through Central Asia, modern day Turkey, and onwards through ancient Orthodox countries to England's green land, I have this impression.

The predominant view of Orthodox laity, be they the Oriental Orthodox in India, to the few Chalcedon Orthodox left in Turkey, and the majorities in Greece and the Balkans, is precisely that expressed by Bishop Kallistos in the 'Orthodox Church.'

I was raised in Canada, and raised by my parents in the Anglican Church. Until the age of nineteen I lived in this increasingly multi-cultural milieu.

Was I not surprised to hear what I heard amongst the Oriental Orthodox in India and then the Orthodox laity in Turkey, Greece and the Balkans and further northwards in Romania - I most certainly was surprised! Initially, even quite shocked.

In my experience, the opinion of the Orthodox laity is this: the Roman Catholic Church fell into schism, finally declared in 1054. Since that time, and to speak of the present day, since I was not travelling in the 8th century or the Middle Ages, it is the absolute opinion of the vast majority of the Royal Priesthood that the Roman Catholic Church is an entirely different world.

It's theology affected it's cultural expressions, and for the Orthodox laity they see very clearly a very different world in the Latin West.

The views of the Royal Priesthood range all the way from the absolute invalidity of the Latin Church and their Bishops, Priests and Sacraments to some forms of moderation.

In areas effected by the Austro-Hungarian empire the feelings run very deep. No less so in the lower regions of the Balkans and Greece, deeply effected by the Ottoman occupation. Should we even mention Turkey?

I have never meet a Greek who refers to Constantinople as Istanbul (afterall, the word Istanbul is simply another way of saying 'to the City.) I have met many Greek Orthodox laity who out of (perhaps a misplaced respect) refuse to journey to Istanbul.

Though the feelings can be at times quite virulent, they do express an underlying theological understanding in the Royal Priesthood.

To answer Klod's point in particular, this theological understanding of the Orthodox laity has been historically the salvation and preservation of the Orthodox Church. It is their present day understanding which is no less different.

I could go into the Greek Orthodox reaction to entry into the European Union, to the Romanians' shame at being the first Orthodox country to permit the Pope to set foot on their soil, and their present fears of possible entry into the European Union in 2007.

I think that is enough for now.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear friends:

In my opinion, this issue is so simple, but it frequently is made complex by people because they feel so passionately about it. Baptism is the way that anyone is received into the Church. Plain and simple. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Arian, Nestorian, atheist, whatever you may have been, baptism is the way you are received into the Church. With that said, the Orthodox Church is a pastoral church. There are reasons to accept Arians by chrismation only at certain points in history. There are reasons to accept Uniates by confession of faith only at certain times or places in history. But, as St. Nicodemus says in the Rudder, what is done by exception or by economia does not become the new rule. This is a simple concept and should remain as such. What the Church decided to do with Arians or Uniates hundreds of years ago has not become a rule; a guidepost perhaps, but not a rule.

Scamandrius, I recommend discussing this with your priest and asking him to discuss it with your bishop. There are some bishops that, upon learning of your desire for Orthodox baptism, are happy to accept you in such a manner.

Aaron

[Klod]

Dear Fr. Seraphim,


catholics and protestants, true, are in many aspects two sides of the same coin, as do the catholics, at the same time, consitute a completely different issue, when orthodox basic doctrine is faced with the doctrines of denominations outside orthodox church.


Somewhen in middle and late 16 century, if I remember exactly, patriarch of Jeremia II after having his correnspodence with the Luterans (I have read the book that most of you might have seen in english), was congratulated for his responses to the lutherans from the pope of Rome.



An average roman catholic and greek orthodox believer, what you call royal priests, are characterised both by the believe in Trinity, Christ as Son of God, Crucified Saviour, devotional prayers to the Mother of God (something none of protestants share) to the saints (most or many of whom are the same); fear before Holy Communion; pilgrimage to Holy places, obedience to the church hierarchy; confession and sacraments.


these things are particularly in common among orthodox and catholics, and are not shared by none of the protestants, not even lutherans and anglicans!



All these, and many other things, are the same among them, and they cannot make an distinction and it doesnt mean anything to them the deep difference lying under the meaning of deep theological and philosophical "filioque" etc.


Other aspects of what you call royal priesthood, are many times characterised by simple ignorance, misunderstandings and even political hate, or nevertheless a humanly hate of fallen nature, something which has nothing to do with the Love of the Gospels, inspired along sides of national or empirial feelings. This is a common feeling in the Balkans, especially among greeks and serbs.




Many times, when I am confronted with evangelical criticism toward roman catholics, I feel like they are attacking orthodoxy; so is the belief in real presence of Christ in Communion; veneration of Icons; sacraments; church structure, tradition, saints and asking their prayers etc etc. Even when they talk about the infamous inquisition, when I look at history the church of east has had more or less the same attitude of persecuting someone when s/he didnt conform to the faith of the church-state.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My dear brothers & sisters in Christ,

A fascinating discussion that is a microcosm of exactly what one hears through the whole Church.

I do feel confident that if you read through this thread you will see that while the Church is not arbitrary in how it receives people into the Church this also largely comes down to a matter of discernment. And this is so even if your jurisdiction has a general 'rule'.

So while at times these discussions can become a pointless argument- on the deeper & more positive level they reflect the effort the whole Church puts into discerning what is the most suitable way of receiving people into the Church.

I think this relates to Seraphim's point about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy and how this is expressed by the common effort of the Body of Christ to chart its course through the world.

Discernment and the common effort to discern is something which is part and parcel of life in the Church. If we can recognise this then we will not interpret the effort this takes in the negative way we often do.

Discernment is the most basic aspect of the fact that Christ shares His life with us and this represents a call to each of us to share in this with a measure of freedom & a sense of responsibility.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

Father Seraphim, bless ...

"The views of the Royal Priesthood (of Orthodox laity) range all the way from the absolute invalidity of the Latin Church and their Bishops, Priests and Sacraments to some forms of moderation."

There is a way out of this confusion if we would but take it.

First, let us admit that it is impossible to maintain that the Latins -- Catholics and Protestants -- are not Christians, because they all believe and confess the kerygma (Acts 2: 14-39). And they all stand in a nearer or a farther relationship to the Church, based upon their faith and praxis. It is impossible to speak of the Latins as we would speak of, say, Hindus or Buddhists. If the Latins are not in the church, they are at least on the grounds of the church. Some of them may even be in the vestibule.

To the extent that the faith and praxis of the Latins conform to Orthodoxy, to that extent do they have grace. Some more, some less, depending on their faith and praxis.

The church is full of light. Some of that light shines outside the building.

I am eager to hear what my brothers and sisters have to say about this way of thinking, even those who would condemn it. If my thinking is in error, show me, and I will accept correction.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Alec Lowly]

Klod writes:

"An average roman catholic and greek orthodox believer, what you call royal priests, are characterised both by the believe in Trinity, Christ as Son of God, Crucified Saviour, devotional prayers to the Mother of God (something none of protestants share) to the saints (most or many of whom are the same); fear before Holy Communion; pilgrimage to Holy places, obedience to the church hierarchy; confession and sacraments.

"these things are particularly in common among orthodox and catholics, and are not shared by none of the protestants, not even lutherans and anglicans!"

That's not necessarily so, my brother. I've known very conservative, very traditional Anglicans and Lutherans who are close in these respects to Rome and to us.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

[Susan F Peterson]

As a Roman Catholic for 35 years now, I humbly beg you my fellow Christians, to remember Our Lord's prayer for the church "that they may all be one, as the Father and I are one" and to pray for this unity. When I pray for this unity I ask that it come about in the way that God wills and knows to be the right way, not according to my ideas, thoughts, feelings, and imaginings about it. I think all of us could make this prayer in good conscience.

I beg you also to consider what Klod says above about how much we Roman Catholics have in common with Orthodoxy.

The division between our churches is surely not according to the will of God. No one can abandon what he believes is the Truth to achieve union. But we ought to do everything towards it that truth and conscience permit. And most especially we should pray for each other..and again, for God's will to be done in this.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Klod,

You write


Other aspects of what you call royal priesthood, are many times characterised by simple ignorance, misunderstandings and even political hate, or nevertheless a humanly hate of fallen nature, something which has nothing to do with the Love of the Gospels, inspired along sides of national or empirial feelings. This is a common feeling in the Balkans, especially among greeks and serbs.

Alas, as a Greek-Cypriot I cannot deny that one great source of frustration for me has been the tendency I've perceived in some of my countrymen to collapse their religion and ethnicity into one, seeing Greek Orthodoxy as Greek Orthodoxy rather than Greek Orthodoxy. In fact that whole business of calling the Orthodox by their respective country (Greek Orthodox, Russian, Romanian etc) is a potential source of division amongst us which can lead, by a misunderstanding, to the sin of phyletism and which zealots for the Western denominations love to play on, seeing us as ethnic clubs. I will not defend those among the laity (or sometimes even the clergy) who have fallen into this serious error. There is a big difference between patriotism as a love of one's country and culture, and nationalism as a source of chauvinistic contempt towards others. In fact, it seems to me that someone who truly understands what a privilege it is to have a fatherland and a mothertongue, cannot help but admire and respect those who are from different backgrounds.

However, none of this negates Fr Seraphim's point that the Faith has been defended by the Royal Priesthood of the laity in Orthodox countries. The fact that some members of the laity have failed to live up to their true vocation as Orthodox Christians, by persecuting rather than loving others, surely doesnt mean that the whole of Orthodoxy is mistaken in its teachings! I wouldn't want to go into the sort of misunderstandings of what being "Christian" means that have taken place in the West. Let me just suggest that we are perhaps living the very consequences of those misunderstandings today, in our modern technologised (non-)existence!

I write tendentiously of course, and ask your forgiveness if I have caused any offence. My only valid point is I believe, that true Christianity has nothing to do with hatred, racism or imperialism, be it "Western" or "Eastern"...

In Christ
Byron

[Alec Lowly]

Susan writes:

"The division between our churches is surely not according to the will of God. No one can abandon what he believes is the Truth to achieve union. But we ought to do everything towards it that truth and conscience permit. And most especially we should pray for each other..and again, for God's will to be done in this."

Amen to that, sister. Very eloquently expressed.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner
Orthodox

[Klod]

Dear Byron, the following quotation from our dear Fr. Seraphim


In my experience, the opinion of the Orthodox laity is this: the Roman Catholic Church fell into schism, finally declared in 1054. Since that time, and to speak of the present day, since I was not travelling in the 8th century or the Middle Ages, it is the absolute opinion of the vast majority of the Royal Priesthood that the Roman Catholic Church is an entirely different world.

It's theology affected it's cultural expressions, and for the Orthodox laity they see very clearly a very different world in the Latin West.

The views of the Royal Priesthood range all the way from the absolute invalidity of the Latin Church and their Bishops, Priests and Sacraments to some forms of moderation.

I do believe that laity, sharing in royal priesthood, have potentially all the means to access, expose, protect and prove the truth.

Our beloved scholar, Philip Sherrard makes this point as well in his excellent book "Greek East and Latin West".

Nevertheless, this responsibility of the royal priesthood goes hand by hand with the abuse in the course of history, which has been accepted by the same scholar, which reflects the negative side of popular opinions due to political, cultural and ethnic conditions of the time, which means that the reaction of laity toward certain ecclesiastic phenomena, can be explained very well simply by looking at the historical conditions and not by attributing to laity some sort of necessarily divine inspiration due to their participation in the royal priesthood.

For example, greeks or byzantian greeks, could afford themselves an opposition to the pressure of latins during 13-15 century, because of their geographical position not linked territorially with West, because of their ethnic pride and anti-latin feelings and because of their hope that turks would tolerate the anti-latin greek party in case they and not latins were to take over Constantinople, as the city was obviously going toward capitulation.

Otherwise, greeks, royal priesthood, from southern Italy could not afford this opposition and went as far as to keep the eastern rite being under the authority of the pope of Rome, i.e as uniates.

therefore, when we take into account such cases we know that Latin contempt of byzantian greeks in east was affordable because of merely historical conditions and not because there was some special sort of divine inaction.

I do believe in the real potentiality of the laity, that as royal priests, they can represent faith as good as probably none, but in my own practical life, to be honest, I have never witnessed it in a real practical and wide sense.

I havent seen that in Albania, I mean a real sense of responsibility of laity, who by sharing in royal priesthood, they have a separate and non influential conscience of purity of faith.

I dont think I have seen that in England where I have lived for some time.

On the contrary I have seen people hugely influenced and deeply depended on the way monks and priests preach and talk to them, be that for positive or negative.

To be honest I have seen even monks with anti-latin medieval prejudice or portraying them in an absolute generalized negative aspect.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Normally, unless one is a child, reception into the Church is through catechesis (even infants during the baptism service are first made catechumens if only for a few minutes). While one's background is important the really crucial thing is the degree of one's desire for the Faith. This desire is always expressed through one's understanding that the essence of what is being asked is some degree of a death to oneself, of some degree of leaving behind one's past attachments, in other words of taking up of one's cross and following Christ.

In discussions about baptism & chrismation this aspect of our coming into the Church is often left out and instead of placing our life into the context of what is asked of us we slip into a mindset of demanding things of the Church. When this occurs it means that there is something essential of our own personal 'treasure' that we have resisted giving up.

Sooner or later we all need to face this critical issue of self-sacrifice as the basic point of entry into the Church. Humanly we can try to short-circuit the process but sooner or later Christ will confront us with this most basic point: have you desired to commit to dying to yourself- or have you come here (ie the Church) continuing with the pattern of the Old Adam of wanting and demanding things as the validation of all that you deem to be good?

The most basic point of catechesis has always been that it brings each person entering the Church to a recognition and acknowledgement of the need of a death to oneself. How one is received whether through baptism or chrismation is part and parcel of this death to oneself so that entry into the Church becomes a commitment and not just external 'magic'. Otherwise our entry into the Church becomes unwittingly an affirmation for retaining of old baggage which is harmful to us and ultimately an invitation to self-will.

Obviously though in recognising that one must commit to a death to oneself one also encounters the reverse side of the coin- that we cling to our self-created sinful false self as our dearest treasure. In a way as we go through this realisation we are entering new territory since it has been many long centuries since we have seen so many adult conversions to the Orthodox Church. It would be helpful for us to read the catechetical homilies of St Cyril of Jerusalem or of St John Chrysostom which so powerfully express the critical need for an inner conversion which the sacrament of reception so perfectly expresses & implies.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

On the contrary I have seen people hugely influenced and deeply depended on the way monks and priests preach and talk to them, be that for positive or negative.
To be honest I have seen even monks with anti-latin medieval prejudice or portraying them in an absolute generalized negative aspect.

I'm not sure that monastics influence such things as much as they express what is already a general assessment. In any case what monastics express about the schism or 'the west' for example is usually not just prejudice (which my trustworthy Concise Oxford Dictionary defines as 'preconceived opinion or bias before proper inquiry') but rather is the result of what they at least consider to have been prayerful and sober assessment.

It should be pointed out that our whole Orthodox way of assessing or seeing things is different from that of the world where precisely the prejudice of opinions based on emotion and intellect outside of God are so strong. And one of the most important results of this distorted way of seeing is the 'historical perspective' which instead of seeing history as taking place completely from within the divine perspective is seen as the operation of autonomous natural forces which even man is almost powerless to resist. Thus the schism which is one of the most crucial episodes in human history is often described as the result of 'prejudice' rather than conscious thought-out choice whether it be right or wrong(on both sides).

A second aspect of the modern historical perspective is that it is based on the assumption that the present is more authoritative than the past because the present is always more enlightened than the past. This again rests on some un thought-out belief that human culture is rolling on inevitably towards some more progressive end. Based on an optimistic view of autonomous humanity without God the inner flaw of secular history is that it removes the sense of objective Truth outside of one's own subjective judgement. By doing this it cuts the ground out from a justification for an objective morality. And by doing this it falls into the fatal self-contradiction of denying to human history choice in any real sense.

Let's just say that the Orthodox perspective on our history is radically different from this and based precisely on how God and free response to God are the driving forces of history. There is no need to reject the study of history- it has been an important subject since at least the time of Eusebios or even since the time of the Gospels- or even to completely reject the modern historical method. But rather than falling into the secular pattern of ascribing human history to impersonal forces which are probably more the result of human fantasy than of illumined reality we can use history to study the way in which people of all times and cultures have responded in freedom to the Divine invitation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Klod]

Dear Fr. Raphael

if a monk, or whoever, goes on to represent westerners today, i.e latin christians as thieves, robbers etc, based on examples from late medieval time (what venetians have stolen from Constantinople in 13 century), then that is surely prejudice. Or if one goes on to say that orthodox children pray more then catholic children, although that one is not born in a catholic country, has become a monk relatively in an early age and has lived always in an orthodox country, then that would be a prejudice as well.

Although, true, history cannot be seen as a driving force in its own right, outside from God, it can be studied in its natural forces without maybe mentioning God, but without denying God.

And there are certainly natural laws through which history develops. In my own personal life of 33 years I may say I have formed an experience through my ups and downs in life. However, I am not saying that it was those ups and downs in its self that gave me lessons, denying so God behind them. I am only observing some general criteria (natural laws created from God) that in time have given me some lessons.

In this aspect history has certainly an progressive course, and that doesnt mean it works towards the positive end.

I am sure, had the church been born in a different world order, from that of the ancient and medieval time, as with regard to political, sociological, technological, economical aspects, then we would have talked differently about lots of issues. The way decisions were taken then, and the way how things run, reflect perfectly the standard of time.

The ancient ecclesiastic issues would have been discussed quite, if not completely, different from the church of our days. For example there would certainly not be monks going to Council meetings with sticks to beat up opponents; there would not be riots in the city's streets about which ecclesiastical party was to take over; there would not be people arrested, persecuted and exiled because of nonconformity in faith formulations; there would not be government decrees enforcing which church doctrine to follow. There would not even be a chance for misunderstanding because of lack of communicating time and space, of language knowledge, of information.

Although I am not denying the personal subjectivity of man and human heart in creating those problems, I say that they were created along these external patterns, and although we, in 21 century, havent maybe changed the heart, we have changed a lot - not completely - these external patterns...

[Robert Hegwood]

To the OP.

I'm not sure if my own experince will be useful. In 1998 I was baptized into the Orthodox Church. It was my third baptism.

Twice as a child in the Baptist Church I submitted to Baptism, the second for the mistaken reason that I thought when a family changed churches you needed to get rebaptized. The first time at 6 was for the right reasons.

When I came to Orthodoxy in the mid 90s it didn't take long to learn about conflict between the strict and economic views that defined much of the theological landscape of the era.

I knew some would not consider me truely Orthodox if I were not baptized since Baptists didn't practiced triple immersion. It seemed the issue could become a real stumbling block for some. My priest said normal practice for them was to christate those with Trinitarian baptism, but that they generally required a certicate from the chuch that baptized for verification. With me that was impossible...it had been long ago and was too far away, and time was too short as it stood. And so using lack of documentation as a sort of pretext for "economia" in my case, I was baptized.

Personally, I'm glad of it. There's no wrestling with "was it an abuse of economia" question. On the one hand I look at it as the fulfilment in substance a journey I had begun in form as a child. On the other hand I look upon it both as the removeal of a potental stumbling block and an affirmation that by the grace of God, everything in my past was laid aside so that I might receive my whole faith, top to bottom from Orthodoxy God willing.

[Edward Henderson]

I agree we must not make personal attacks on individual Catholics or anybody at all. This is not the issue here. What this discussion has become is one of the very nature of the Church. All of us can agree that the Great Schism in 1054 was a horrible tragedy. The question remains, how do we view the Church. Do we advocate the Anglican branch theory that the Church is merely the body of believers in Christ or who hold to minimal orthodoxy (Christ is God, Trinity, Bible is true, etc.)? Then there are those that discount Protestantism altogether and see the Church as two lungs, the Western Latin Church, and the Eastern Orthodox. This was Pope John Paul II's belief. Both traditional minded Orthodox and Roman Catholics would disagree with this idea.

The separation between the Orthodox and Latins is not merely political, cultural, and historical. Those elements cannot be denied, but the heart of this schism is theological. Even Patriarch Bartholomew once admitted that our Churches were ontologically different, meaning our experience of the divine, of who God is differs. The Latin dogma of the filoque strikes at the heart of Orthodox Trinitarian theology. It affects how we understand all three persons of the Holy Trinity. Our understanding of grace and thus sanctification and salvation differ. Ofcourse, this means our understanding of human nature then differs. The difference ofcourse then creates differences on how we understand the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, Church authority (especially regarding bishops).

This does not make individual Roman Catholics horrible monsters and that we, as Orthodox Christians, should feel superior to them. But we cannot ignore the factors that separate us. We must embrace the Truth and the fullness of Truth lies exclusively in Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism still caries many Orthodox truths, but they are mingled with falsehoods.

That is why I can without hesitation say that Latin communion is not the Body and Blood of Christ, it is a wafer and wine, thus it is not salvific. The same goes for Latin baptism. It invocs a different Trinity and even lacks the form of an Orthodox baptism. At one time, they at least had the form. This is confirmed in Father Aidan Keller's translations of the Sarum Rite liturgical books.

What Orthodox Christians must do is witness their faith to pious, believing Roman Catholics. They see what is happening to their Church and the direction it is taking. Pope Benedict is more traditional than his predecessor but he is also in his 70's, which statistically does not guarantee a long pontificate. One must also remember that the power behind the Papal throne is the Curia and they are not of one mind.

[Klod]

If there is a Schism of the theological sort, of differences in how God and practical life of the church is understood in its minute details, then this Schism may be represented as a Schism of two special classes within the Church, the class of the learned people, which are a slight minority in number, which have formed two Institutions!

Round these two elite groups are gathered, as a second class, people who, although in their vast majority have not the slightest clue about the theological differences and their deep meanings, are divided by culture, politics, language and often by a geopolitical factor as that of an empire confronting another one.

They are called orthodox or catholic for various reasons, other than being fully conscientious of what they really believe. They simply are what they are merely through registers.

In practice, this second class is the same in most of their basic faith.
I dont see the difference in those catholics who baptize their infants conscientious of the need of salvation since the moment we are born, compared to those eastern christians, who although happen to have a rightly done ritual according to canons of church, in hundreds and thousands of cases they baptize their infants simply and merely because of traditional custome, something which has been done so by generations - and without caring at all whether baptism meant leaving up to Christ's own life, but looking at baptism as something that keeps healthy, gives good luck, protects you from evil eye...

The hypocrisy of those who adhere to the first class of those learned people is that they are happy to condemn why there is no observance of the right practice in the other opponent Institution, although many of them have had a right intention in baptism, while they are satisfied in calling the multitude of their own people of the second class, who baptize simply because of is customary.

Historicaly, the main issue at discussion between eastern greeks and western latins, have been 1)the nature of primacy of Rome 2) Filioque.

Apart of these two points, in majority there has been believed, the two sides can co-exist despite different usage and practice in their own local communities.

Well prior to 1054, the usage and practice of the two seas was already different, although the church was still one.

In Russian orthodoxy I see a lot of latin post-schism influence in church practice, starting from iconography, standardized theology, music and many other points.

[Klod]

A interesting article about roman catholics, you may find here (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm)

[Edward Henderson]

Differing cultural customs and ignorance among the laity, whether they are Latins or Orthodox, still does not make the case that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are two lungs of one greater church. I am well aware of the scholastic and western influences in the art, music, and theology in the Russian Church. However, one only has to look to the Optina Elders, Saint Seraphim of Sarov, Saint Theophan the Recluse, Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov, and other Fathers who sought to foster a more traditional Orthodox ethos, routed in the Church Fathers and the Hesychast teachers. Likewise, the ignorance of the Greeks, treating the Church Mysteries more as ethnic magic, does not make the Roman Catholic Church one with valid mysteries.

I must also bring to attention that the Pre-Tridentine rites found in the RC Church bear a much more Orthodox liturgical ethos. Father Aidan Keller, former of Saint Hilarion Monastery, has done fantastic work translating the Sarum Rite books into English. Ensemble Organum, led by Marcel Peres has put out a series of Pre-Schism Western Church Music (3 volumes of Old Roman, 1 Ambrosian, 1 Beneventian, and 1 Mozarabic Chant Cds), which bears closer resemblance to Byzantine and Znamenny Chant. Father Aidan's research shows that the Western Church also practiced triple immersion and used unleavened bread. In reading Father John Romanides' works, he shows that the early Roman Popes condemned the filioque. Even today, the Orthodox Church honors Saints Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Irenaius of Lyons, Jerome, Gregory the Great, John Cassian, and many other Western Church figures as Church fathers. One only needs to read the theological, hagiographical, historical, and spiritual writings of the Western Church upto the Great Schism to see its Orthodox ethos. After the schism, it departs further and further from Orthodoxy to what we have now, in this post-Vatican II era, where Roman Catholicism now is closer to Lutheranism than Orthodoxy.

[Klod]

In many aspects, the two churches, are two lungs of christianity.

We shouldnt look such a expression to find how this can be dogmatically justified, since it is not a dogmatic formulation, neither an effort to define the eclessiastic structure ti fit into it doctrinally east and west.


It is simply a positive expression for the role the two churches have played in the course of history for the truth that of the Triune God, Christ as God-human and Saviour, crucified and resurrected, for the deity of the Holy Gost, for the Church being built upon Apostles; for the communion of saints and their intercession, veneration of images, for the holy liturgy and its redeeming sacrifice, for the veneration of images, for sacraments, real presence of Christ in Holy Communion.



This aspects of christianity are preserved in both churches and among simple folk they are experienced in the same essential way.



In regard with Filioque, even in this forum, there would be only few people (Mathew, Owen and two or three others) who might have a real idea what it is all about. The rest has only learned by heart, in their minds and hearts, the difference in formulation.



As I say, I see a problem that while eastern zealots will be eager to condemn western latin treachery in faith, at the same time they will proudly proclaim how entire countries and nations in east have preserved orthodoxy!!!!


I say this is hypocrisy, because orthodoxy is lived and experienced and known only by a tiny minority even in eastern church, so that while condemning latins, why not condemn even those who might seem to be inside the church physically not spiritually? Simply because they have written their names down in orthodox church baptism register?





Furthermore, if it would happen today that Rome and western latin christianity would be threatened for its existence, that would not give any benefit to eastern christianity. The existence of western church is essentially beneficial for east too, as it is true the opposite.


While I dont see such a relation with other denominations, be that lutheran, anglican etc.

[Owen Jones]

I am flattered, but after many good discussions on this site regarding filiogue, I am as perplexed as ever.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This aspects of christianity are preserved in both churches and among simple folk they are experienced in the same essential way.

There is one Church since it is the One Body of Christ in its fullness. An Orthodox way of seeing the Church would not be that "there are aspects of christianity preserved in it" because then in fact it would not be the Church but only a religious organisation.

I think the above presentation in trying to appeal to charity since no-one is without sin falls into the other extreme of seeing the effort of the Church from a purely humanistic point of view.

When we look for what the Church is we look first to Christ and then to the whole way of life He has left us through the living Tradition. Then we see how this same life being continuous from apostolic times up to this has been that which makes the Church what it is.

In focussing on the common sin we all share in as an indication that the Church is not able to claim that it is the One Body of Christ we are actually focussing on death instead of life.

If there is not a True Church then there is no Church. And if there is no Church then we only have religious moral groups trying to do their best. But if this is so- at least from an Orthodox way of seeing things- then truly death has triumphed and all that is left to us is to comfort each other emotionally while the things collapse around us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bogdan]

Hello all,
I am a new member to this forum, so forgive me for jumping into a discussion that seems to be well developed. Due to this fact, I'm going to take some time to read and consider prior posts before jumping into the dialogue. I would however like to address one particular thing that was said above. I know this is being picky, but it is a subject that I feel strongly about, and face on a regular basis.

Mr. Edward Henderson writes:

"That is why I can without hesitation say that Latin communion is not the Body and Blood of Christ, it is a wafer and wine, thus it is not salvific. The same goes for Latin baptism. It invocs a different Trinity and even lacks the form of an Orthodox baptism."

In as much as I agree that Latin communion and baptism are not the same as the Orthodox counterparts, I would very much disagree that their spirit is not the same. I have the hardest time reminding people at my parish of the dangers involved with saying when and where the holy spirit is. The simple fact that they invoke the Trinity, means that they invoked THE trinity. There is no other trinity TO invoke. This is the power of the holy spirit, for it allows even the 'technical' mistakes of the Latin church, to be blessed by our Lord. We see the power of this in our own church with the laying of the hands for priest anointment, and other examples.

The point is, our church accepts Latin, protestant and in general christian baptism, and RIGHTLY SO.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Bodgan Pantic above writes,


The point is, our church accepts Latin, protestant and in general christian baptism, and RIGHTLY SO.

However many Orthodox of past & present do not accept that a non-Orthodox baptism is a true baptism. One can see the effort of the Church to discern about this from the times of the first post-Apostolic heresies.

From this point until now one can see clear evidence of how and why some would urge for strictness while others would allow for economia. As I have previously posted I believe this shows from past Church practice that both ways are possible and that the way one is received is done so mainly through discernment- not a universally applicable rule for all times and places.

The problem with the viewpoint that non-Orthodox baptisms are always recognised as true baptisms- that this is the universal rule of the Church- is that this goes against the above evidence of Church history & practice. It is difficult to fit the ever present evidence of discussion about these baptisms into the idea that the Church universally recognised these as as valid. I believe that the evidence of Church practice instead shows that different practices were accepted and that there was not one universal rule. To use modern language there are a number of tools available for bringing someone into the Church. It is notable however that these tools are always sacramental and this must have an important message for us of some sort.

The question still remains however when someone is received by chrismation only. Is this a recognition that the non-Orthodox baptism was a true baptism? Is it economia pure & simple as if nothing sacramental had occurred before Orthodoxy? Or is it that the Church is filling what was not complete?

Certainly one nowadays hears all three explanations two of which clearly contradict each other. But I think we need to give more thought to this. How does the Church in fact see grace as acting outside of Herself?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Edward Henderson]

Nobody can argue the intentions of Roman Catholics in the celebration of their sacraments. However, to say that the spirit behind theirs and ours is the same, constitutes a grave misunderstanding of the Church. Is the Church One? Second, what is schism? Finally, what is anathema? The Church Fathers, although often addressing the Latin Pope by his ecclesiastical title, still considered the Latin Church to be in schism, heresy, and under anathema. The early fathers were also clear that grace outside the church works to bring people to the Church. If the mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church are fully valid, then we make our Orthodoxy just another ethnic or religious custom.

Although we, as Orthodox Christians fall very short of this calling, we are called to a unique experience of the divine, to the fullness of salvation, which is impossible outside the Orthodox Church. I am not saying that all those who are not Orthodox are damned. The Church Fathers speak of three stages of spiritual life, purification, illumination, and deification (theosis). Baptism brings about illumination. Our experience of the afterlife corresponds to our level of spiritual perfection. So, I would say that illumination and deification are not possible outside the Orthodox Church, only purification. We see this in the lives of righteous people outside the Church. They are often pure and good people, with great love for God and mankind. But they start talking theology and the flaws make themselves amply evident. That is still not to say that they could not receive the experience of salvation one who has achieved purification receives. I leave that to God.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not just an ethnic tradition. And it is unfortunate that it has become that among too many Orthodox communities. It calls all people to a life of union with God, theosis. This idea has been lost among the Latins and totally absent in Protestantism, because their experience of the spritual life, while often pure and moral, lacks illumination, which is only brought about by baptism and chrismation.

Now, we see that the issue of receiving Latins and Protestants into the Church has been one of debate and changing practices for centuries now. There is ample evidence of Latins and Protestants being received into the Orthodox Church by baptism. Father George Mellatinos puts forth the case in his book, "I Confess One Baptism."

To this day, the great centers of Orthodoxy, Athos, many of the Russian Monasteries, Father Ephraim's Monasteries, Saint Catherine's, the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria. When our Old Calendarist Metropolis entered the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Metropolitan Paisios told Patriarch Bartholomew that he receives Latins and Protestants by Baptism, and was blessed to continue to do so.

I am not going to say that those merely chrismated into the Church are not fully Orthodox. Then again, they may run into problems if they wish to commune in the previously mentioned places. They may also find themselves being offered baptism there.
The questions comes back, when we understand what Orthodox baptism is about and its affect on the soul and spritual life we must ask ourselves, do we really want to refuse such a thing? And, do we really want to deny this experience to those coming into the Church?

[Bogdan]

I agree that there exists a catch-22 of sorts with this issue. On the one hand, as you pointed out with your last question, how are we to discern the grace of non-orthodox baptisms? On the other, that the invocation of the Trinity allows for true baptism.

This of course is similar to most debates on other chrstian churches..however even within orthodoxy itself we have this debate, especially with issues such as the calendar and other tensions. I believe when one looks at the fact that even within orthodoxy we search for grace, how are we to determine our strictness towards other sects of chrstianity and their use of God's grace? This is a puzzle I am glad we are trying to solve, but as you stated above, it puts us in a position where the here and now must be dealt with without much guaranteed guidance.

In the solving of this current aspect of the puzzle, I would disagree with your leaning towards the non sanctity of non-orthodox baptism. I respect the reasons you have, and in many ways would agree with them MORE than even my own points. However, there is something about accepting their baptisms that we seem to have glossed over. As you stated in your second paragraph, and is also generally known about this topic, entry into the orthodox church ALWAYS involves a "tool of sacrament". This I believe is where we fulfill the completeness of orthodox faith while allowing the Holy Spirit to do it's work, without our judgement, in that persons baptism. I strongly believe that it is our duty to fulfill the sacrament of chrismation and then also bring about a TRUE conversion and confession in those who would come into the fold of Orthodoxy. In this end, I do not see how excluding a baptism that we were not at or a part of, makes any sense. Are we not righting any and all wrongs by doing OUR parts correctly? Will not God see our deference to his possible baptism, yet also see our determination to make SURE the rest is done by his grace? I for one believe so.

[Alec Lowly]

"I am not going to say that those merely chrismated into the Church are not fully Orthodox. Then again, they may run into problems if they wish to commune in the previously mentioned places. They may also find themselves being offered baptism there."

Hmm. Whatever happened to "I believe in ~one~ baptism for the remission of sins"? By denying the grace-bearing nature of Trinitarian baptism outside of Orthodoxy, "the great centers of Orthodoxy, Athos, many of the Russian monasteries, Father Ephraim's Monasteries, Saint Catherine's, the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria," certainly seem to be 1) asserting that they know where the Holy Spirit is not, and 2) reinterpreting the clear meaning of the Symbol.

We know that Arians were received into Orthodoxy by chrismation. We know that glorified saints have been received into Orthodoxy by chrismation -- including saints that were glorified by the very same Old Calendarist jurisdictions that our brother Edward refers to.

Besides: Those who had received Trinitarian baptism outside of Orthodoxy who then sincerely and conscientiously come to ask reception into Orthodoxy -- is this not prima facie evidence that they have received the grace of the Holy Spirit?

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Father Anthony]

Alec Lowly wrote:

>Hmm. Whatever happened to "I believe in ~one~ baptism...

What happened is that those who do not understand the nature of the Church (or because of some mistaken ecumenical thinking)have misinterpreted that statement by the Apostle incorporated into the Creed. He (the Apostle) actually writes, "...one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." Are we to assume that therefore Lord Krishna, the Buddha, the deity acknowledged by Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. are the "one Lord" or that the faith of every person who claims the title "Christian" is of the "one faith" referred to by the Apostle? Obviously not. So there is no defensible reason that only "one baptism" can be made to be a universal.

The Church has never understood "...one baptism..." to mean that *all* baptisms by *anyone* which is performed in the Name of the Trinity are the same. Rather, that the expression "...one baptism..." refers to the baptism done in the Church according to her manner. "...one baptism..." simply does not mean *all* baptisms.

Baptism, like all of the other Mysteries, is given to and is of the Church, who is the guardian and dispenser of those Mysteries. Period. If that were not the case, the Church would be superfluous. If God in His mercy chooses to accept the good will of those who do not know better - and we believe that He does - then we praise Him for that. But it is through the Church that the Mysteries are available (and *only* through the Church).

>By denying the grace-bearing nature of Trinitarian
>baptism outside of Orthodoxy...seem to be 1)asserting
>that they know where the Holy Spirit is not

In this case it's certainly possible to say that the Grace of baptism is *not* present in the rites of the heterodox. But that is not the same as stating that the Holy Spirit does not work in their lives (that's what "grace" means). The statement about knowing where Grace is or is not, is one of the most disingenuously misused comments of the ecumenically-inclined and those ignorant of the Church's Tradition. Yes, there is plenty of Grace outside of Orthodoxy...but *not* Mysteriological Grace, which is available only in the Mysteries dispensed within the Church.

>2) reinterpreting the clear meaning of the Symbol.

Rather, as I pointed out above, to claim that the term "one" means "all" is the reinterpretation. The fact that Arians and others have been received into the Church by Chrismation or any other means indicates only that various types of economia were used in time and place as appropriate for the salvation of those coming to the Church. The Church can use any means she desires to join individuals or groups to the Church, providing the Grace lacking in them before that time. It's called part of binding and loosing.

>Those who had received Trinitarian baptism outside of
>Orthodoxy who then sincerely and conscientiously come
>to ask reception into Orthodoxy -- is this not prima
>facie evidence that they have received the grace of
>the Holy Spirit.

Sure. Just not the Grace of Baptism. All of creation is endowed with Grace, which sustains all. Grace is everywhere present. Those who come to seek to be joined to the Church do so because they have responded to Grace. But it's just as silly to suggest that they have already received the Grace of baptism because of that desire to be joined to the Church than to claim that they have received the Body and Blood of Christ in whatever (if any) rite of communion in which they might have participated - whether they use bread and wine or corn tacos and tequila. Or that every so-called Christian minister/clergy-person forgives and/or retains sins. The obvious anomalies could go on and on.

To hold otherwise is an alternative theology which essentially holds that there is no reason other than smells and bells and personal tastes to join the Orthodox Church...that the means of Grace (the Mysteries) are everywhere - or at least other-where - and not unique to the Church Christ founded and to which He gave the Holy Spirit.

Fr. Anthony

[Bogdan]

I enjoyed your explanation Fr. Anthony, it definately puts some of the terms used in a different light, and has allowed me personally to see a different side to the argument. Thank you for the analysis.

[Klod]

Is the church one? Yes, the church is one!

Are we going to enter a scholastic type discussion as what does ONE in detail mean and what possibility includes and what impossibility excludes?

If we are going to radicalise this being ONE, as something, either inside what we know as church, or, otherwise, nothing at all, then we owed to understand that we will be contradicted by the life of the church in history, in which we will find many examples of people being baptized outside the church, and being accepted through chrismation only at their conversion into the church.

As with regard to what schism and anathema are, WE know what particular people, who caused and issued them, intended, BUT we do not know their real extent of efficacy.

As we know historically, Schism (of 1054) is only a convenient date of latter historiography, which didnt have the same immediate and full effect at the time when happened.

After the schism, communication between east and west continued in many varying ways, culminated in the councils of Bari, Lyons and Florence.

The simple fact that there were efforts of reunification through conciliatory meetings throughout 11-15 century, means that there was the conviction that, in our case, east did not consider west as completely fallen, otherwise those meetings would have been pointless from the point of view of east being the church and west a fallen, apostate human organization.

Orthodox church may not hold a council with budhists, hinduists, muslims and neither with evangelicals!

From this simple point we see the special place roman catholics occupy in regard to orthodoxy.

Moreover, anathemas among Rome and Constantinople have been lifted up from more then 4 decades from today.

As with regard to the way of understanding Trinity, there are a lot of orthodox baptized people who do not have the full understanding required in understanding not only trinity but also other aspects of orthodox docrtine. Moreover, many of them may share a personal view in these things, which might be, if anallytically checked out, heretical. Nevertheless, these many orthodox people have a free acces not only in Communion and Sacraments and church life, but also we, the intelectuals, are happy to call them orthodox on the basis that they are orthodox baptized greeks, serbs, russians, romanians etc...!

How do we measure the right and orthodox intention of the orthodox priests in the way they personally understand Trinity when they baptize people?

Therefore, the importance understanding of Trinity in minute details affecting the efficacy of baptism, is merely an institutional bureaucracy.

So, if someone is baptized with a right intention as a catholic, that person might be much more closer to me, despite him confessing filioque, than a orthodox who might get baptized without having a clue what it is all about, moreover sharing even individual non-orthodox view and scepticism toward what he is doing.

[Father Anthony]

"Klod" wrote:

>Is the church one? Yes, the church is one!

True. The Church *is* one.

>Are we going to enter a scholastic type discussion as
>what does ONE in detail mean and what possibility
>includes and what impossibility excludes?

It is not "a scholastic type discussion" to point out the belief and teaching of the Church. As I wrote previously, the term "one" as used by the Apostle clearly refers to "only" and to "fulness." The Church indeed is one: it is *not* many. For that reason, it is of extreme importance that each person seek and be joined to the "one" Church. The idea that "one" includes more than that Church - the Orthodox Church - which has preserved the fulness of the Faith is dumbfounding.

>As we know historically, Schism (of 1054) is only a
>convenient date of latter historiography, which didnt
>have the same immediate and full effect at the time
>when happened.

Of course the Schism took time to spread. But it did. The former Church of Rome went into schism and over the centuries became heretical.

>The simple fact that there were efforts of reunification
>through conciliatory meetings throughout 11-15 century,
>means that there was the conviction that, in our case,
>east did not consider west as completely fallen,
>therwise those meetings would have been pointless from
>the point of view of east being the church and west a
>fallen, apostate human organization.

That is partially true. The fact that the Church attempted to reconcile the Latins to herself demonstrated two things primarily: the seeking for unity and political expediency, depending on the time and place of the efforts. History attests to those realities.

>Moreover, anathemas among Rome and Constantinople have
>been lifted up from more then 4 decades from today.

That is basically irrelevant. The Latins long ago entered into heresy and the anathemas of 1054 could not address what would occur in the future.

>As with regard to the way of understanding Trinity, there
>are a lot of orthodox baptized people who do not have the
>full understanding required in understanding not only
>trinity but also other aspects of orthodox docrtine.

The simple misunderstandings or errors of individuals do not make them heretics, only ignorant or misinformed.

>Moreover, many of them may share a personal view in these
>things, which might be, if anallytically checked out,
>heretical.

It has been said that everyone has their pet heresies. However, the sin of heresy which cuts one off from the Church is the obstinate refusal to accept correction when it is given, and the teaching and proclaiming of the false doctrine contrary to the Church's Faith.

>How do we measure the right and orthodox intention of the
>orthodox priests in the way they personally understand
>Trinity when they baptize people?

Speaking of a "scholastic" approach...

The Orthodox Church does not subscribe to the Latin teaching that for a Mystery (Sacrament) to be "valid" are required matter, form, and intention (and the theology that accompanies each of those requirements). That false theology is one of the reasons that the Latins can, for example, practice divorce and remarriage on demand while calling it "annulment" instead of divorce. But that's another whole discussion.

When a person is Baptized in the Orthodox Church, that person is joined to the Church. When an Orthodox Christian receives any Mystery from a canonical Priest or Bishop, the Mystery is true. Any other understanding would make it impossible for one ever to know that one has received a "true" Mystery.

>So, if someone is baptized with a right intention as a
>catholic, that person might be much more closer to me,
>despite him confessing filioque, than a orthodox who
>might get baptized without having a clue what it is all
>about, moreover sharing even individual non-orthodox view
>and scepticism toward what he is doing.

Such an assertion is false on its own face. The Baptized Orthodox Christian has been joined to the Church. The Latin who underwent their baptismal rite becomes part of a schismatic and heretical denomination. It cannot correctly be asserted that any Orthodox Christian could have less in common with another Orthodox Christian - eccesiologically speaking - than with one who is part of a profession of such heresies as papal infallibility, indulgences and the storehouse of merits, original sin/guilt, the immaculate conception, the nature of Grace itself, and so much more. The so-called "filioque" almost (but not actually) pales in comparison to the acculumation of errors among the Latins over the centuries.

I'll leave further explanations to others...

Fr. Anthony

[Alec Lowly]

Father Anthony writes:

"Baptism, like all of the other Mysteries, is given to and is of the Church, who is the guardian and dispenser of those Mysteries. Period. If that were not the case, the Church would be superfluous. If God in His mercy chooses to accept the good will of those who do not know better - and we believe that He does - then we praise Him for that. But it is through the Church that the Mysteries are available (and *only* through the Church)."

I did not say otherwise, Father.

But would you agree that just as it is true that not all within the visible Church will enter the kingdom, not all outside the visible Church will fail to enter the kingdom? God knows His own, and the Spirit moves as He wills.

Yes, all sacramental grace is in the Church and flows out of the Church. Like abundant water, this grace overflows and seeps under the Church's doors into the street. The Church is so full of light that the radiance shines right through the windows, outside the walls.

Without the Church, however, no grace, no water, no light.

In XC,
A;ec Lowly, sinner

[Alec Lowly]

Klod writes:

"So, if someone is baptized with a right intention as a catholic, that person might be much more closer to me, despite him confessing filioque, than a orthodox who might get baptized without having a clue what it is all about, moreover sharing even individual non-orthodox view and scepticism toward what he is doing."

Thank you, Klod, for this post. Like you, I do not understand people who run around closing the windows and shutting the doors. We know that the Lord will preserve the Church in all its fullness. We have His word for it. Our faith should be greater than our fear.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Klod]

First of all, my name is Klod and not "Klod"!

The church is One, does not answer the point whether a former roman catholic MUST get re-baptized, when converted into orthodoxy. Why it does not answer? Because that ONE church, in course of history, from the first centuries down to our own time, has accepted people from schismatic and even heretical groups through Crismation.

In face of this fact, then, your using of the church being ONE by excluding all others is just a personal attitude, which is not shared by all the ONE church.

I repeatedly say, the fact the eastern byzantine orthodox went into Counclis with roman catholics, shows clearly that, although there was division between east and west, both sides did not consider each other as completely fallen and apostate, otherwise they would not have any reason to sit together in a Council.

The pope was addressed appropriately with his priestly titles.

So that the Councils have been not merely some meetings of the church with some fallen heretics, but rather two sides coming together in reconciliation.

When I write about the right understanding of Trinity in baptism, it was to answer those who say that roman catholic baptism cannot be true because it is addressed to another Trinity than that orthodox, on the grounds that the latins understand trinity differently.

I say that this is de facto bureaucratic, because the vast majority of believers in both churches, including a majority of clergy as well, are not conscientious neither about these differences, nor in the way they refer to God, as Triune.

Therefore, filioque is in many aspects just a formal teaching, that concerns only a tiny group of learned people, without affecting the rest of the church.

As far as it is kept within this learned circle, its importance is fine, otherwise, the fact that the vast majority is neither conscientious nor does it know what it all about is, means that it cannot be forced upon people to distinguish an orthodox from a non-orthodox person.

Let us not forget that Phariseism was all and only about keeping the RIGHT formal faith!
So that let us learn that while keeping the right position, we are doing the same thing.

As for my self I say, of course there is a de facto and de jure division among byzantian and latin churches.

Nevertheless, I concentrate in what brings them together, and I find there are a lot of points, theological, historical and informal, that do so. At the same time, I try to get rid of that which in division was merely an cultural, linguistic and geopolitical factor, while trying to keep only the theological factor.

I know many orthodox clergy who wouldnt even bother that roman catholics are not in union with orthodoxy, moreover some want them out of orthodoxy and dont want neither trust them coming back.

These people have their own 'theology' as well!

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

This has certainly become a lively discussion. Many valid points have been raised, often by the same person, who then is criticized because of certain elements in their post.

Klod's point of two 'caste' systems in Orthodoxy is, for me, very well understood. Also, do not forget, almighty American Orthodox, that Klod is writing from Albania. Give him some courtesy. It is very, very true and very, very sad that the Orthodox, in vast majorities, whether Priests or laity do NOT know their faith. So from this very moment forward (to paraphrase our beloved Saint Herman of Alaska) I humbly ask that EVERYONE start from the beginning and become once again truly Orthodox.

How can we proclaim, as we do, so loudly, and with such a sense of 'I am better than you' that (despite our human folly and fraility) we are the ONE CHURCH of CHRIST, when we ourselves, give the best example for not becoming Orthodox?

In the Balkans where Klod lives, and from all the posts he has patiently written in a foreign tongue, what he says, is unfortunately what you see 'on the ground' as it were.

At times I call to mind the saying of a Priest to me years ago: "The right Faith given to the wrong people."

No one seems as yet to 'pick up on' Fr. Raphael's essential point, that despite the fact that both Baptism and Chrismation have been accepted at different historical epochs, it is DISCERNMENT which rests on the shoulders of our Priest and Bishops, that is the final word for each individual persons who with humility seeks entrance into the Church.

Fr. Anthony's post #27 is excellent, very correct, theologically without error.

As I have lived, as Klod lives permanently in the Balkans, allow me this reflection. Klod's reflections, though sometimes not expressed in the English of Fr. Anthony, nevertheless are very actual.

Can I be permitted to say this and this is my personal experience. Though I have been blessed to be an Orthodox monk for over thirty years, that does not mean I am an Orthodox monk in my heart.

Orthodoxy is a pilgrimage for all of us. Whether we are 'cradle' Orthodox, or came to Orthodoxy in early adulthood. Without doubt, being a Catechumen, then being Baptised, then being Chrismated, then partaking of the Holy Mysteries, is not the final fulfillment of our duty to Orthodoxy.

To follow Christ, to read the Gospels over and over, to read the Psalter over and over, demands to become a fool for Christ.

To follow Christ is the most difficult undertaking imaginable. It demands crucifixion. Before the glorious Light of Pascha we must descend into Hades.

Thus, we have the common understanding in Orthodox monasticism that no one, however holy the earthly life, is canonized in this life. Why in the writings of the Desert Fathers, and contemporary Paterikons and Materikons do we see and read time and time again, that the disciples gathered around the bed of their beloved Gerondas or Gerontissa, will hear from their parched mouths: "Woe is me, will the angels come? I am dirt, my sins have only increased since taking the Schema..." and in utter amazement their disciples look at each other and say amongst themselves "but how could Elder N. or Eldress N. have these thoughts, behold the life they lived! They fought the demons for years, truly they put on Christ, why the doubt?"?

But the Elder or Eldress knows better.

Unless, I, Seraphim, can be a living, walking, talking example of a disciple of Christ, why would anyone want to become Orthodox upon beholding my life?

I am a disciple of Father Sophrony, but in my heart I know I am the worst of his disciples and the most unworthy to even mention that I was taught by him. Where are the fruits? In my heart I am a withered branch. This is why God wanted me to live through this latest surgery, because I have not learnt humility, I have not learnt the way of Christ, His Holy Apostles, His Most Pure Mother, nor His saints. I remain a pilgrim still, even after all these years and such excellent instructors. I best pay heed to myself, or my sins will only increase and my Schema will disintegrate due to the stench of my failure to comprehend my Teachers and learn the humility of Christ.

[Andrew Williams]

Thank you Fr Seraphim for your post on this topic. Such posts make it worthwhile working through the monachos-laden inbox.

[Marie-Duquette]

Thank you, Father Seraphim for your simple illuminating words, today. For me there lies the TRUTH synthesized in the learning of true humility from Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God!

As I read the Scriptures -- the Gospel -- it seems to me that the only time that Jesus asks us to learn from Him is in Matthew 11:29 when He says,

"Come to me all you who labor and are overburdened, and I will give you rest. Shoulder my yoke and LEARN FROM ME THAT I AM GENTLE AND HUMBLE OF HEART, and you will find rest for your souls. Yes, my yoke is easy and my burden light."

The Scriptures holds the "teachings" and the "example of the teaching" in Christ Jesus, Himself, who is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. We are invited to hear the Word and keep it; to allow it to be sown into the soil of our hearts; to tend it diligently and watchfully, that it may bear fruit a hundredfold; and all the rest ...........

Pray for me, that I may "learn the gentleness and humility" exemplified in Christ Jesus.

marie_duquette

[Alec Lowly]

Father Seraphim, bless ...

"No one seems as yet to 'pick up on' Fr. Raphael's essential point, that despite the fact that both Baptism and Chrismation have been accepted at different historical epochs, it is DISCERNMENT which rests on the shoulders of our Priest and Bishops, that is the final word for each individual persons who with humility seeks entrance into the Church."

Respectfully, Father, neither has anyone picked up on the unspoken scandal here: the refusal of the Holy Gifts to faithful chrismated Orthodox on the sole grounds that they were not baptised Orthodox -- in other words, the schismatical rejection of the discernment of Orthodox bishops and priests by other Orthodox bishops and priests, on the sole basis of their particular understanding of faith and praxis. There's a word for this.

That we all must struggle to become authentically Orthodox -- that is, to put on Christ and the fullness of Christ -- is eloquently addressed by your post.

But we are not helped in this struggle, the unity of the faith is not helped, when those who arrogate to themselves an "I'm more Orthodox than you" identity refuse to acknowledge that their brethren are their brethren.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Alec,

The way in which a priest bases his decision about chrismation or baptism is not based on the idea that "I'm more Orthodox than you are." Nor is the priest passing on the message to the newly received that now they are "more Orthodox than you are."

The priest bases his decision on what the basic rule of the Church is and also discernment in regards to the person entering the Church. Hardly anyone would disagree with this. But where disagreement has arisen in the past is over what the rule of the Church is- and in turn at one time at least this was strongly influenced by how one defined the relationship of the Church to the world. In the past this had gotten to the point that jurisdictions were defined by how they answered this question.

We have before us two questions- one of what the rule of the Church about reception into the Church is. And the second is that of dealing with the legacy of the past which we still live with. The first I would say has always been an ongoing question with no cut and dry answers.

The second is much more delicate and takes a lot of hard work since it cuts so close to the bone (mainly how we have invested ourselves as Orthodox- it is difficult to have this challenged)and can thus so easily arouse unfruitful passions.

During my Orthodox life of 27 years I have lived on both sides of the 'great divide' concerning tradition, calendar, baptism/chrismation, etc. When I became Orthodox it was often part and parcel of one's catechism to be thoroughly trained in how those on 'the other side' were schismatics, possibly heretics, and at very least not to be associated with. This was 'normal life' then.

Things now have changed in a positive way I honestly never expected. This change I think is due both to our having much more of a common mind than previously and also to a recognition of some of the mistakes on the extreme ends of both of our houses.

I somehow feel that monachos is itself a fruit of this change within the larger Church. It is not that differences between us do not exist. They do but we needed to get to the point where these differences were something which could be offered to each other as brother to brother instead of being weapons of attack.

This is still very much a work in progress with a lot of trial and error. To learn to be open to what others are saying so that we can see how or if a positive lesson is in fact being offered can only be done in a spirit of love and by humbling ourselves. And this gets down to a lesson in how to express ourselves and in how to react in regards to what we disagree with.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

Father Raphael writes:

"... It is not that differences between (Orthodox) do not exist. They do but we needed to get to the point where these differences were something which could be offered to each other as brother to brother instead of being weapons of attack.

"This is still very much a work in progress with a lot of trial and error. To learn to be open to what others are saying so that we can see how or if a positive lesson is in fact being offered can only be done in a spirit of love and by humbling ourselves. And this gets down to a lesson in how to express ourselves and in how to react in regards to what we disagree with."

Father, you're absolutely right. My post No. 97, posted yesterday, has been a burden on my mind all day today. I have sinned by rash and intemperate speech and by lack of charity, and I am sorry. So I ask forgiveness of any whom I may have offended.

I'm tempted to say more concerning the subject of that post and about various comments you've made about it, but it's best just to let it go.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Alec,

Christ's peace be with you. As what I wrote yesterday implies- or actually says as clearly as I could at the time- I also am trying to learn as I go along and so this means that undoubtedly I have made mistakes.

It's a difficult task trying to keep to faithfulness as well as openmindedness to what is not really wrong but only different. The discussion/debate about chrismation and baptism can fall into either or both sides of the above and so it is a challenge for all of us.

Absolutely no offense was taken in any of the words you or anyone else have written. As I wrote yesterday I think monachos is partly an opportunity to heal the past through learning to interact in a way that almost never existed ten years ago. That's amazing when you think about it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael