Michael Azkoul, incl. Augustine and Baptism

[Alvin Kimel]

Who is Fr Michael Azkoul and what is his theological background and training? Is he recognized as a reliable and good theologian?

[Fr Averky]

Father Michael Azkoul lives in a suburb of St. Louis Missouri. He was for many years a priest of the Antiochean Archdiocese, but left over what I remember to have been issues concerning ecumenism. He was then received into the Russian Church Abroad, where he remained until the Panteleimonite Schism in the late 80s.

While possessed of a PhD., Father. Michael is not an effectual theologian in that he is basically interested in attacking Blessed Augustine. In or around 1987, he printed what was to been the first volume of his "History of the Orthodox Church." Those who reviewed the book, especially Archbishop Mark of Munich, found it to be totally unsuitable as a serious history due to its many blatant inaccuracies and obvious evidence of lack of scholarship, research and erudition. It was basically an all out effort to discredit the Blessed Augustine, and is posssessed of the greatest number of quotation marks to be found in any book published in at least the last century. It was not a success, and has never been reprinted. After it failure, its sponsor, Holy Dormition Skete in Colorado dropped the projest. I know of no further publishing efforts since that time.

While upon rare occasion Father Michael has authored a few very good articles and I believe that was many years ago, he really has no standing as a theologian, scholar, educator, or author. He also has a most unfortunate lack of knowledge of litrugics. He has not been employed for many years, but does maintain a sort of family parish. He is very strict, and if his son cannot be present for liturgy, none is served, because Father will not permit his presbytera or daughter-in-law to read or sing during Divine Services.

Whatever his scholastic shortcomings might be, he is a very kind and gentle man and his presbytera is a lovely Christian woman. His son Paul is an accomplished iconographer. As far as I know, he is still a member of H.O.C. N.A.. That is all I can tell you. I first met father Michael in 1975, but not have seen him or had contact with him since 1988.

Fr. A.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Alvin,

in all fairness, what I posted are basically recollections. I just went to Google, and found several articles and some books. However, I find my self still maintaining that he is not recognized as an Orthodox theologian of substance. Someone like Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos is one to whom we should look.

Perhaps you might read some of his writing and share your impressions with us. An ally of Archimandrite Panteleimon of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, he became involved in the controversy of the late 70s which pitted Boston against the Platina Fathers in regards to Evolution, The Shroud of Turin, and the Toll-Houses.

This was a very difficult time for converts in the U.S.; the Metropolia had just become the OCA, the Synod was highly regarded under the guidance of Metropolitan Phiolaret, and Father Panteleimon and Father Nikitas Palassis in Seattle were constantly attacking the Fathers in Platina. Father Panteleimon and his followers hold to the view that all New Calendar Churches are devoid of Grace, while the Synod never held to such a view, yet they were in the same Church. Father Panteleimon built a virtual diocese -within- a- diocese, and his followers, including priests and monastics, were in obedience to him, and not their local Russian bishop.

Father Michael very much supported Fr.*Panteleimon's views and those of Lev Puhalo, now Archbishop Lazar, who was defrocked because of his heretical teachings on the soul after death.

Fortunately, all these people are gone, including Fr. Herman, and the Russian Church Abroad is moving closer to negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate, whose theological views we share.

Fr. A.

[OrthodoxLearner]

Wow!

Very intresting history... but I'll stick with the lives of the saints, instead of a few heretics and schismatics.

In Christ
Daniel

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Actually Father Pantelemion, Father Neketas Plassias and Fr. Azkoul are very much still around. Whether one considers Fr. Azkoul a theologian of any substance depends on whether you're a new calendeist or Old Calenderist, whether you believe in ecumenism or not.

Fr. Azkoul is an Old Calendarist and opposes ecumanism as well as the heretical beiefs of Augustine that are directly opposed to Orthodox teaching on the issue of Ancestral sin.

Therefore, whether any of the fathers listed above are of substance or not depends on where you stand on the issues. read more on Fr. Azkoul and I think you'll discover alot more information about him that may help you decide for yourself about his credentials that I personally believe are very exceptional.

[Edward Henderson]

I think we are turning this into a nasty debate, which is unfortunate. To call Saint Augustine a heretic goes too far. His teachings are certainly flawed, but those flaws were due to ignorance not rejection of Orthodox doctrine. At the same time, any Orthodox theologian will admit that no one single Church Father is 'infallible' and all have expressed views that are not totally correct. That is why we look at the common teachings of the Church Fathers. Father John Romanides very well exposes the flaws in Saint Augustine's teachings (www.romanity.org (http://www.romanity.org)), but never calls him a heretic. The problem lies in Latin Church's attitude toward him. He became, after his repose, the main theologian of the Latin Church. They failed to understand his writings in the light of the Church Fathers, because they had lost the grace of discernment.

The reality remains that he is included among the ranks of Saints in the Orthodox Church. This has been the case long before ecumenism or the new calendar came about. Most of his writings are Orthodox, it just seems that today, certain theologians prefer to focus on his writings that are flawed. So, I don't really see a contradiction between Fr.John Romanides' and Fr. Seraphim Rose's writings on Saint Augustine, because they are focusing on different things. However, I do think Fr.Michael Azkoul does go too far in calling Saint Augustine a heretic. The Church declares who is and is not a heretic, not individuals.

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dear Edward:

I must disagree with you on Agustine being a recognized Saint in The Holy Orthodox Church. This is not true. Now, Augustine is called Blessed Augustine and was a very pious man, but some of his views were heretical. You want to say flawed that's fine, but his views on Ancestral sin were wrong, VERY wrong.

Clement of Alexandria was a very pious man, but he was no Saint because some of his views were heavy with Greek Pagan Philosophy.

I mean no disrespect to Augustine, but Fr. Azkoul is correct as Fr. Romanidies is as to the mistakes in Augustine's Theology. Whether Fr. Azkoul goes to far in his assessment of Augustine is for each of us to decide.

[Edward Henderson]

Dear Peter,

If Augustine is not recognized as a Saint in the Orthodox Church, why is He included in the listing of Saints on Orthodox liturgical calendars? You will find him mentioned not only on the Saint Herman's (Platina) Calendar, but also on other ones in America, Greece, Russia, etc. Secondly, if he is not considered a Saint, why is it that Bishop Augustinos of Florina (Church of Greece), bears His name. There have been icons and frescos painted of him since before the 20th century.

Here is some further information I found: Pope Vigilius [†555], in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among "...our Fathers," of the "blessed Augustine" for his willingness to retract and correct various among his "writings" and "sayings" ("Decretal Letter," The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV).

We can also note that such historical luminaries as St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome (†604), St. Photios the Great (†895), and St. Mark of Ephesus (†1444 or 1445), while citing him, in specific instances, with certain qualifications, nonetheless also paid homage to his sanctity: In his letter, "To Innocent, Prefect of Africa," Pope Gregory calls St. Augustine "blessed" (see Epistles, 10.37 [NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. XIII]), and St. Photios refers to him as the "divine Augustine" ("Augoustinon ton hieron") (see his "Epistle to the Archbishop of Aquileia," Patrologia Graeca, Vol. CII, col. 809D), as does St. Mark in the thirty-fourth of his syllogistic chapters in defense of the Orthodox Faith against the Latins at the Council of Florence ("Syllogistika kephalia pros Latinous" ) . (While it may be argued, here, that many Eastern Church Fathers held the Blessed Augustine in high esteem simply because they had not read his writings, both St. Photios and St. Mark, once more, were at least familiar enough with his works to evaluate, qualify, and, more significantly, praise his theological discourses.)It is also in their universal recognition by the Orthodox Church that the verity of their witness is ultimately established. It is, thus, worthy of note that our Father among the Saints Augustine is cited as "shining forth most resplendently among the African Bishops" in the Acts of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod (553) ("Ruling of the Synod," P. Labbe and G. Cossart, Sacrasancta Concilia, 1671, Vol. V). Similarly, in his epistle to the Fathers of the same Synod, St. Justinian (†565) includes, in his references to the "holy Fathers," Augustine among such luminaries as Sts. Athanasios (†373), Basil (†379), Gregory the Theologian (†389), Gregory of Nyssa (†395), John Chrysostomos (†407), Cyril of Alexandria (†444), et al. (ibid.).

No one is questioning whether Saint Augustine held certain views and understandings that were not Orthodox. However, most of his writings are Orthodox. Second, from the above cited information, not only did the Church NOT condemn him as a heretic but has, at several occasions lauded him.

It is not for us, Fr. Michael Azkoul, or any Old Calendarist group to deem Saint Augustine a heretic, rather it is the work of the Church. It seems to me that the Church has already spoken.

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dearb Edward:

I appriciate your response and will investigate further. What I can say for now is this. I was always taught to call Augustinne as "Blessed Augustine" and that it was always taught to me that he was NOT a formally listed Saint of the Orthodox Church.

Second, as a Greek Orthodox Christian both Old and New Calendarist views reside within the Greek Community, both here and abroad. I was baptised in a New Calendar Church, but both of my parents had strong leanings to the OC. The separation between New and Old In the Greek Communit is not as clear cut as you might think.

Further the rest of the Orthodox Church follows the Old Calendar NOT THE NEW, except for the Greek Church under the jurisdiction of the Partiarch of Constantionple.

Finally, many Monks of Mt. Athos would disagree with you as I have met many from the Holy Mountain that will call Agustine "Blessed" but not a Saint. However, I will investigate the issue and get back to you on it. I do not want to mis-inform you or anyone else.

However, Fr. Azkoul was assaulted on this discussion page and I came to his defense. Why? because many of us agree with his writings and still harbour great respect not just for the Old Calendar, but what it represents.

Many OC people continue to feel that this was a western interpolation upon the Greek Church by Greek nationalist at the time The Republic of Greece wanted to join the nations (i.e. Western Nations) of the world and pushed for certain culteral and religious reforms that were against the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

If you disagree with the OC fine, if you disagree with Fr. Azkoul fine, however bear in mind that many and I mean MANY church Fathers were castigated and looked down upon by other Church Fathers as well.

We acknowledge the brilliance of Origin, but know that he was heretical. He acknowledge the moral backbone of Tertullian, but know that he was heretical. Even the Great Stain Athanasios, if his views are taken to the extreme (i.e his theology that formed the basis for the concept of Theosis) can be heretical.

I have never said that Blessed Augustine was not a good Christian man, or that he was not an intellectual giant, but his views on Ancestral Sin and the nature of man are Incorrect! Babies are NOT the limbs of Satan! Is this not a heretical teaching from the Orthodox point of view? Yes it is. Did Blessed Augustine ever renounce this view? No he did not.

In addition, understand this. The Roman Catholic Church has many wonderful qualities and great moral and Dogmatic christian teachings, but it is still heretical. It is a heretical Church.

Do we ignore the filique? Do we ignore Papal infalliability? According to your logic we should. If Augustine, or the Roman Church for that matter, was 99% correct it does not matter if He, or the western church, was wrong this one little time.

However, I say to you that this teaching of Blessed Augustine has perpetuated a heretical view about the nature of man, has obscured the salvation that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has given us, has made man more retched than he really is and distorts, if not destroys, man's participation in his own Salvation as clearly taught to us in St. James Epistle as found in the New Testament.

In other words, upon reading Blessed Augustine, Martin Luther got it right. As Luther taught, Man cannot be saved through anything he does it is purely a gift from God through our Faith alone in Christ. It was within the teachings of Blessed Agustine that lay dormant the coming of the protestant movement, which Luther instituted upon reading Blessed Augastine's writings in conjunction with St. Paul's Epsitle to the Romans, to the exclusion of St. James' Epistle. Why do you think that out of all the ancient fathers of the Church Protestants quote him the most?

If this is not heretical I do not know what is.
However, in all fairness I will check your allegations and report back. I was only telling you what I was taught by my spiritual fathers, and what our Orthodox faith consists of as taught to me by my parents, especially my mother.

Further, Blessed Augustine's name has come up several times in my conversations with both lay Greek Orthodox Christians in Greece and Priests and he was not viewed nor referenced very favorably. This is all I know, but I will look into this more closely.

Thank you again for your response, and if I said or implied anything that was hurtful or mean I apologize and ask for your prays and forgiveness.

Yours In Christ

Peter

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dear Edward:

I have come across a few things.

First, I have confirmed that Augustine is called blessed in the Orthodox Church, Not a Saint.

Second, yes he is listed in the liturgical calendar of the church, this I know, but I cannot find how often he is celebrated, at least in the East.

Third, your previous statements about Augustine came from Archmandrite Ephraim. If this is the same person who has done the provisional translations of Orthodox Liturgical books on the net and is based out of England I now understand a few other things.

Such as, Archmandrite Ephraim, is not recognized as a priest on the Holy Mountain of Mt. Athos because he has failed to undergo triple baptismal emmersion. A great controversy surrounded him while he was on the Holy Mountain with even the Patriarch of Constantinople not being able to force the Monks to recognize him as a priest. Therefore, Archmandrite Ephraim left the Holy Mountain, I believe under protest.

However, there seems to be a split within the Orthodox Church as to the "reverence" to be given to Blessed Augustine. Those opposed to the New Calendar and Ecumanism give Augustine no regard at all. Those under the New Calendar and in favor of Ecumanism tend to give Augustine, especially among the Russions and Ukranians, too much reverance and do accord him the title of Saint.

The Orthodox Church of America does call him a saint, but downplay his significance and are very detailed on what things Blessed Augustine got wrong.

The Greek Orthodox Archdioces officially recognize him as a Saint, but many in the Archdioces are quick to criticize this move and state he should only be called Blessed. There is a clear distinction between "Blessed" and "Saint" in the Orthodox Church and in its liturgical celebrations.

So, I hold to my original position. Augustine is called Blessed not a Saint, except depending on your point of view. Kind of like Fr. Azkoul, being viewed as relevant or not, which was my point from the very beginning.

With the Love of Christ

Peter

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Edward and Peter,

Here is a good link on the subject matter.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/augustine8.html

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dear Matthew:

Thank you for the article. It is in keeping with what I have always been taught. Orthodox can call him Blessed, but not a Saint. Thank you for the Article.

In addition, it also vindicates Fr. Azkoul's teachings and positions, at least for me. However, as I stated before, it depends on your point of view. Thank you againt Matthew.

Yours In Christ

Peter

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter and Edward,

I think that St. Photios gives us a good example to follow particularly in reference to the Blessed Augustine. It seems to me that St. Photios was basically saying to the Latin's don't mess with Augustine's, Jerome's and Ambrose's writings to promote your ideas that are not in accordance with what the Orthodox Church has already said in the Ecumenical Councils, particularly when some of their writings out of human weakness may be in conflict Holy Writ or what the Church has already accepted in council. The problem is that if the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical councils are changed or adjusted significantly and not just fine tuned so to speak then the authority or veracity of any of the Orthodox councils becomes open for debate or questioning and in error which they are not. This of course would imply what is stated in an Orthodox council is not absolute even if the Bishop of Rome states that it is.

Part of The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1895) on Reunion

VII
So then the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils believed and taught in accordance with the words of the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but in the West, even from the ninth century, the holy Symbol of Faith, which was composed and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils, began to be falsified, and the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son to be arbitrarily promulgated. And certainly Pope Leo XIII is not ignorant that his orthodox predecessor and namesake, the defender of orthodoxy, Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, and from the Son (Filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Symbol of Faith of the first and second Ecumenical Synods, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).

There is a strange sort of thinking that goes on with the Latin's which seems to be that truth is adjustable from time to time. The Council of Florence comes to my mind.

Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino, backed by the Council and proclaimed infallible the dogma of no salvation for anyone outside the Church.

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

At the time that the above was written it seems to me that the Orthodox had been considered to be schismatics from a Latin perspective. The strangeness of such a statement is that the uniates who accepted Latin understandings ask for the intercessions of the Saints of the Orthodox who the Latin's considered to be schismatics. For the Latin's things have changed again for nowadays anyone can be saved and Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic infallible bull is either not infallible or the Orthodox are united with the Pope of Rome even if we are not in communion with Rome in some unknown way we are with the Latin's and we just don't know it even if we don't want to be. So much for free will. The Latin's think this has to be because Peter has the keys.

Sorry if I have digressed.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dear Matthew:

You did ramble, but it was a very good ramble. A very good ramble. Thank you again for the information. and...

Thank you Edward for your patience with me. I apoligize if I did offend you in any way.

Yours In Christ

Peter

[Olga]

Dear Peter

It is not just the Greek church (apart from Athonite monasteries) that uses the Gregorian calendar, but also the churches of Romania, Antioch, Bulgaria and Cyprus, and probably others. The Slavic churches (with the exception of the Bulgarian) continue to use the Julian calendar. Also it must be remembered that some monastic communities in Athos can be VERY conservative and implacable when it comes to matters of calendar use and recognition of converts by anything other than triple immersion baptism. Given the recent flareup of the long-running controversy at Esphigmenou, it would be no surprise to hear that someone like Archimandrite Ephraim was given a hard time.

[Edward Henderson]

Dear Peter,

Again, I am not saying that Saint Augustine was a great theologian. I admit that he had doctrinal flaws, but it was more out of misunderstanding and ignorance rather than a conscious rejection of Church dogma.

I am quite familiar with the Greek Old Calendar Movement, having been in it until 1998, when our Metropolitan, Paisios, went under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As an Orthodox Christian, I have always followed the Julian Calendar. Now, living in Russia, I continue to do so. My source was not Father Ephrem in England, but rather materials taken from www.orthodoxinfo.com (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com), which is run by a layman affiliated with the Russian Church Abroad and the Old Calendar Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili. I am using the arguments of Father Seraphim Rose, who was a adamant defender of traditional Orthodoxy and authored the book, "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church."

The point is that we should avoid extremes. We can go too far one way and call him a 'doctor' of the Church or we can dismiss him as a vicious heretic. Neither is right. The Church, in none of her Ecumenical nor Local Synods, has seen fit to condemn Bishop Augustine of Hippo as a heretic. A much more balanced criticism of Saint Augustine's writings has been done by Father John Romanides. There is so much more to point out but my time has run out. Until next time....

[Edward Henderson]

I just thought I would post this letter, written by Father Seraphim Rose to Father Michael Azkoul:

June 13/26, 1981
St. Tryphillius of Cyprus

Dear Father Michael [Azkoul],

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you for your letter. I am frankly happy to see someone with your views on Blessed Augustine willing to do something besides hit him (and all of us who have any respect for him) over the head.

You ask for cooperation on what seems to be a "thorough study" of Blessed Augustine. I really wonder about the value of such a study—for someone who wishes to expose the source of "Western influence" in Orthodox theology, this detailed analysis itself seems so terribly Western!

If your attempt is to find out Augustine's real place in the Orthodox Church, I think your approach is all wrong. It assumes that "we moderns" are the ones who can do this—that we can "know better" than anyone in the Orthodox past. I don't think so. I have a deep distrust of all of us who are writing on theological subjects today—we are more under "Western influence" than anyone before, and the less we are aware of it the more obnoxious our "Westernism" becomes. Our whole cold, academic, and often disdainful approach to theology is so remote from the Fathers, so foreign to them. Let us admit this and try not to be so presumptuous (I speak for myself also).

I have no time (and probably not the sources) to find out how much St. Photios or St. Mark read of Blessed Augustine. I would suspect that St. Photios had read rather little apart from the texts under dispute, and St. Mark probably more (in fact, St. Mark can probably be shown to be under Augustine's "influence" in some way if you search hard enough! —his disciple Gennadius, after all, was the translator of Thomas Aquinas into Greek). Undoubtedly their respect for Augustine was based on the general respect for him in the Church, especially in the West from the very beginning.

And this brings up the only real question I think you might fruitfully research: what did the Western Church think of Blessed Augustine in the centuries when it was Orthodox? The West knew him as one of their own Fathers; it knew his writings well, including the disputes over them. What did the Western Fathers who were linked with the East think of him? We know St. Cassian's opinion—he challenged (politely) Augustine's teaching on grace while accepting his authority on other questions. St. Vincent of Lerins' argument is more with the immoderate followers of Augustine. In neither case was there talk of "heresy," or of someone who was totally un-Orthodox. St. Faustus of Lerins—if anyone, he should be an enemy of Augustine, but the evidence seems to the contrary. St. Caesarius of Arles, St. Gregory the Great-admirers of Augustine, while not following his exaggerations on grace. I don't mention some of the enthusiastic followers of Augustine.

There is room for research here in Latin sources, but no research can overthrow the obvious fact (it seems to me)—the Orthodox West accepted him as a Father. If he's really a "heretic," then doesn't the whole West go down the drain with him? I'm sure you can find enough signs of "Western mentality" in Gregory the Great, for example, to disqualify him as a Father and Saint in the eyes of many of today's Orthodox scholars—he also is accepted in the East on the basis of his general reputation in the West, and on the basis of his "Dialogues" (which I'm sure a few would now question as having a right to be called an Orthodox book).

I think the "heresy hunt" over Augustine reveals at least two major faults in today's Orthodox scholars who are pursuing it:

1. A profound insecurity over their own Orthodoxy, born of the uncertainties of our times, the betrayal of ecumenism, and their own purely Western education. Here Augustine is a "scapegoat"—hit him hard enough and it proves how Orthodox you yourself really are!

2. An incipient sectarian consciousness-in attacking Augustine so bitterly one not only attacks the whole Orthodox West of the early centuries, but also a great many Orthodox thinkers of recent centuries and today. I could name you bishops in our Church who think like Augustine on a number of points-are they, then, "heretics" too? I think some of our anti-Augustinians are coming close to this conclusion, and thus close to schism and the formation of an "Orthodox" sect that prides itself on the correctness of its intellectual views....

I myself am no great admirer of Augustine's doctrines. He does indeed have that Western "super-logicalness" which the Eastern Fathers don't have (the same "super-logicalness" which the critics of Augustine today display so abundantly!). The one main lovable and Orthodox thing about him is his Orthodox feeling, piety, love for Christ, which comes out so strongly in his non-dogmatic works like the Confessions (the Russian Fathers also love the Soliloquies). To destroy Augustine, as today's critics are trying to do, is to help to destroy also this piety and love for Christ—these are too "simple" for today's intellectuals (even though they also claim to be "pious" in their own way). Today it is Augustine; tomorrow (and it's already begun) the attack will be on the "simple" bishops and priests of our Church. The anti-Augustine movement is a step towards schism and further disorders in the Orthodox Church.

Let us assume that one's exegesis of Romans 5:12 is incorrect; that one believes like Augustine on the transmission of original sin; that one knows little of the difference between the "transcendent" and the "economic" Trinity and sometimes confuses them. Can't one still be Orthodox? Does one have to shout so loudly one's "correctness" on such matters, and one's disdain (and this disdain is strongly felt!) for those who believe thus? In the history of the Church, opinions such as these which disagree with the consensus of the Church have not been a cause for heresy hunts. Recognizing our fallible human nature, the Fathers of the past have kept the best Orthodox views and left in silence such private views which have not tried to proclaim themselves the only Orthodox views.

I myself fear the cold hearts of the "intellectually correct" much more than any errors you might find in Augustine. I sense in these cold hearts a preparation for the work of Antichrist (whose imitation of Christ must also extend to "correct theology"!); I feel in Augustine the love of Christ.

Forgive me for my frankness, but I think you probably welcome it. I have spoken from the heart, and I hope you will not pass this letter around so it can be put in various "files" and picked apart for its undoubted shortcomings.

May God preserve us all in His grace! Please pray for us.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

P.S. An important point I didn't specify in the letter above the extreme criticism of Augustine shows such a lack of trust in the Orthodox Fathers and bishops of the past who accepted him as a Father (including the whole Orthodox West before the Schism). This lack of trust is a symptom of the coldness of heart of our times.

* From Father Seraphim Rose, The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996 [1983]), pp. 93-101.

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dear Edward:

I just want to clariy one thing. I respect Blessed Augustine and was taught to call him blessed. However, there is one thing that can settle this debate and that is: Is he listed in the role of Saint in the Orthodox Church?

I do not have a copy of the Synaxaris (Hope I spelled that correctly) to see if Augustine is listed as a Saint or Not. I hope some one out there can help us on this matter.

As for Fr. Azkoul and Fr. Seraphim Rose, these are two controversal figures in Orthodoxy I recognize that. Maybe you do not, but that's ok.

Let me explain. I grew up under the entire Fr. Neketas and Fr. Pantelemion matter and I know, from personal experience in my community how certain monks and priests that support monasteries are looked down upon bad mouthed, etc.

I don't like it. I know Fr. Pantelemion, my Priest at Sts. Constantine & Helen's Greek Orthodox Church knows him and went to school with him. I also know about the struggles that our two monasteries are going through here in the Midwest: One in Harvard, Illinois (Holy Transfiguration Monastery) & Racine, Wisconsin (St. John Chrysostom Monastery).

I know that St. John Cyrysostom monastery was founded by Fr. Emphraim (Not to be confused with Archmandrite Ephraim) and how he was basically forced back into the Greek Orthodox Archdiocies.

I know first hand how Bishops, priests, Metropolitans and Patriarchs behave. Look at how the Patriarch of Constantiople talked to Archbishop Demetrios recently about not supporting Greek Culture nor using Greek in the Archbishop's speece. I don't know he got upset over this as the Archbishop is there to defend the faith not promote Greek Culture (By the way I am Greek).

What I'm trying to get at is, putting Blessed Augustine to the side for the moment. I just like personal attacks on anyone whether its Fr. Azkoul or Fr. Rose.

Now I like the dignaty of Fr. Rose's letter and response to Fr. Azkoul, but to say that Fr. Azkoul, Fr. Neketas and Fr. Pantelemion are now GONE and out of the scene is just wrong.

This was to a response posted by Fr. A, which sounded to me like an agenda he was pushing. Now its fine if he wants to push an agenda or some type of hatful views, but I know the controversy and I know most of the players and I know the Old Calendarits in Boston and Colorado.

I know the Good the Bad and the Ugly so to speak and to say that These poeple are now GONE is just plain wrong.

Anyway, that was my point, but the Augustine issue I would like someone to reslve for us as I'm not an extremeist on this, I was just always taught to call him Blessed and Not a Saint, but I can, and have been, wrong.

Yours In Christ

Peter

PS I'm the same guy you just translated the Books of Moses from the Septuagint into English. Just in case anybody was wondering.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

St. Augustine is found under June 15 in a number of Orthodox Calendars; eg St Nikolai Velimirovich's Prologue & the Jordanville Calendar.

The fact that St Augustine is often referred to as Blessed does not mean he is less of a saint. For example Xenia of Petersburg (June 24)is also called Blessed in the Calendars.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Well I do know that he is listed on June 15th, as this is 10 days after my birthday (that's how I remembered it)

However, is this a Russian Phenomenon or is this found in all Orthodox Calendars as well as Old and New?

The reason I ask this is because of the western and protestant influances that have been put upon the Russan and Ukranian Orthodox Churches. I mean no disrespect in asking this only to clarify the issue.

[Peter Alexander Papout]

In addition Father I have another question. Why are some called Blessed and some saints in the calendar. This does seem to perpetuate a distinction. St. Basil is called Saint Basil not Blessed Basil. Just a question, that's all.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Forgve me- that should be Blessed Xenia of Petersburg- January 24.

Dear Peter-I do not have access to Byzantine Calendars except for St Nikolai (see above) who is Serbian.

I think you can have complete confidence that St Augustine made it into the Calendar not due to 'western' or non-Orthodox influences but rather as a simple recognition that he is a saint. This late insertion into our Calendars it should be noted is not a glorification by us but rather an acknowledgement of the sanctity in which he was held for many centuries in the Orthodox West. In similar fashion many saints from the West have been added to our Calendars who were basically unknown in the East. The change has happened largely because of our churches having been in the diaspora for a period of time and of course the entry of many converts of western background into Orthodoxy.

About the title Blessed: in Eastern terminology this just refers to a category of saint. When we say Blessed Augustine however are we perhaps using a title that was properly used in the West and just simply adopted by us? If so there is no need to keep maintaining that the title is some sort of proof that he was less of a saint.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Edward Henderson]

Dear Peter,

I am really glad we have been able to discuss this. The last contested issue we have just became nasty in the end. I think we then can all agree that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sanctity of Blessed Augustine of Hippo. However, we are aware of the flaws in his theological writings. We do not see him as a great theologian, but rather as a pious, pastoral, and humble hierarch. It is the Latins who have exulted him as a theologian.

As for Father Michael Azkoul, I do not know him personally. I did once make a pilgrimage to Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Boston) in 1997. Since they left ROCOR, like others who find themselves in the Greek Old Calendar Churches (there are now 13 different Old Calendarist groups in Greece, ironic being that the initial split was over 13 days!), have been marginalized. They have not completely dissapeared but in their journals, they are saying the same stuff they have been saying for over 30 years now.

I do not like the New Calendar and I have only followed the Julian Calendar since I became Orthodox. I think our involvement in the Ecumenical movement has done little to witness for Orthodox and often tempt members of the Church to accept the Branch Theory (which is heretical). I don't like the liturgical innovations that we see in too many parishes (especially in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America). I certainly think that Baptism is really the most appropriate and canonical way to receive Protestants and most Roman Catholics (with Eastern Catholics it all depends on the form of their 'baptism'). However, isolating oneself from World Orthodox, which these people have done, has prooved mostly ineffectual and is also not canonical. Many of their arguments and practices are right and correct, but they are, sadly, schimatics. The chief sign that they are such is the divisions among themselves. They are divided over whether or not World Orthodoxy has sacramental grace. Those who say that we have no grace are futher divided over when that grace was 'lost' (1924, 1935, or 1969?). They have divided themselves over the Old Man Trinity Icon. Then, ofcourse, there have been divisions resulted from personal clashes within these Synods.

I have devoted some of my academic research towards the Russian Old Believers. These similiarites between these two groups are striking. Again, many of the Old Believers' arguments are right. Today, the Pre-Nikonian rites are actually closer, in many ways, to traditional Greek practices. But again, they have divided, often manifesting themselves as Priestless groups claiming that the Priesthood has died out.

I have a great deal of sympathy for both groups. They have faced a great deal of persecutions and insults. They are usually also better examples of how Orthodox Christians ought to live than we are. However, they are still schismatics. The reality is that they could come into World Orthdoxy, keeping the Julian Calendar and maintaining their traditions (except for Priestless Old Believers). They would also find that they are not alone in their traditionalist outlook. Since our reception into the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1998, I found that to be case, especially now that I am living in Russia.

So, this is my take on that. I am really glad we can discuss these things without excessive !!!'s.

In Christ,

Edward

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dear Edward:

Thank you again for your response, and I agree with you on all of your statements. The Old Cal. and their various divisions many times remind me of the protestants (Who are still dividing to this day).

The integrety of The Holy Orthodox Church and the Gospel of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is something I take very seriously and when I see Orthodoxy bogged down in Ecumenical dialogue with people and Churches for over 50 years with no progress towards Christ on the part of the protestants in the WCC or NCCC, I ask myself why are we still there?

Also, the calendar for Orthodoxy should be the Julian Calendar. This is the proper calander for the Orthodox Church. Many Greeks in the GOA actually have calendars that have both the New and the Old listings of dates. Although we officially follow the new.

So even in the GOA the Old Cal. is still there among the people and has not disappeared.

As far as the Old Cal. being schismatics yes I agree, but all we can do is hope and pray that they can come back into the fold one day, much like the monastery of Ayia Irene Chrysovalandou in New York did and they still get to keep the Julian Calendar.

Its up to the schismatics to understand that they were the force of change in the Church, but left and may have allowed the Church to stay in the ecumenical movement beyond its time. However, instead of working for a change within the Church they decided to leave and just criticize from the sidelines, which is upsetting to me. I can go on, but I am late.

Thank you again for the discussion Edward and I'll talk to you soon.

Yours In Christ

Peter

[John P. Nasou]

St. Augustine is listed in the Dyptichs of the Church of Greece and of = the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He is a legitimate Orthodox =

[John P. Nasou]

Sorry, I didn't see this question before I answered your prior one. = Some saints who are Hosioi (i.e. Osioi) because they do not fall into = the classifications of martyrs, hieromartyrs, confessors, etc. and that = title is sometimes translated as "blessed" and other times as just plain =

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you both Edward & Peter for your comments. The issues you raise are not only crucial in the specific case of possible reconciliation between the Russian Church Abroad & the Church in Russia. This process and the questions it raises has already begun to raise in similar fashion the question of the relationship between New & Old Calendrist Greeks. Further it raises on an even more fundamental level the direction of Orthodoxy at the present time. Perhaps this was what got this whole process going in the first place.

I think the two of you raise some very important & valid points. If I could just add the following. The split between New & Old Calendrist, 'traditional vs. liberal' is a grievous & tragic legacy of the 20th century. I believe as part of the process of coming to terms with how this happened and of healing we must see how it was connected to the chaos & turmoil of the 20th century. Charting one's course amidst this was not easy but nevertheless choices had to be made. At times the lives of people were even at stake so it was not just a simple choice between abstract right & wrong. The great divide could not be healed at that time precisely because the choices were so profoundly rooted in and would so deeply reverberate through one's life. I think that at a time when 'church choices' are now almost like political choices, it is difficult for us to understand the profound reality behind the choices that had to be made about the course of the Church in the first half of the 20th century.

That the great divide happened is tragic; but seen in context not so surprising.

The fact is that times have changed. There is not only the question of questioning from the sidelines. There was a time after the Second World War when the Church seemed to have consciously chosen that it must not only adapt to the world it found itself in but also adopt the worldliness of the world it found itself in. It may seem harsh to say this now but I believe this does describe Orthodoxy in the West in the 1970s. It is not only that there was the assimilation to the world that one constantly & in all times finds within the Church. There was actually a conscious decision being taken by many who led the Church that we must become more like this world in order to be 'successful'. The Old Calendrist & traditional movements at that time served the crucial role of witnessing about the dangers of this. Like Edward & Peter have said above, at that time there were those within the New Calendar world who were being inspired by what they were reading and hearing from the Old Calendrist/traditionalists.

I would say however that there began a gradual change in the New Calendar world in the 1980s. There began a gradual shift towards the traditional; reading of the Holy Frs, rediscovery of an Orthodox understanding of sacramental life, recovery of piety (fasting, prayer,etc). So I do not think it is fair to maintain that 'the traditionalists did it all.' From having seen the process first hand I would just say that the Holy Spirit was working within the Church.

The way forward is still challenging. First of all there is the need to heal on the most simple Christian level the wounds from the days of the great divide. This will take time and conscious work. Mainly we have to learn to speak with each other, to listen, even if disagreeing. Forums like Monachos play a great role in this healing. I certainly never saw such talking to each other 20 years ago to the point that we are barely aware of what jurisdiction we each come from. Monachos is a sign of and a contributor to the great change & healing in Orthodoxy that has begun. Just by learning to talk with each other we heal so much.

I also agree that the great divide has basically outlived its time. It is no longer a fruitful witness. From witness it is slipping into a donatist mentality(which some among it always had anyway). Seeing the Church as the 'pure' talking at & agreeing with each other is a dangerous enterprise. Without noticing it you become downright strange & very unbalanced.

In terms of healing the great divide I think it is crucial at this point for us all together to recover an Orthodox sense of ecclesiology; specifically of the relationship of sin to the Church. This question I think is what really underlies much of the current struggle to find our way. We fall constantly into confusion & temptation because we have not dealt with this issue properly.

This post has gone on long enough for now I guess. At this point I am very much preoccupied with this question of proper ecclesiology. I think we will stand or fall on this one in the next few years ahead of us. So this is not just an intellectual exercise.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Well said Father, very well said. I think Father had the last word and it was good.

Peter

[Mary Stavroula]

I am also grateful for Fr. Raphael's balanced and wise approach to these issues. However, I find it interesting that Mr. Henderson's statement: "I certainly think that Baptism is really the most appropriate and canonical way to receive Protestants and most Roman Catholics (with Eastern Catholics it all depends on the form of their 'baptism')." goes unchallenged by anyone. In effect, Henderson is saying that only Orthodox Christians that he considers non-heretical (I guess) are truly Christian and all others are not, even if they use the Trinitarian form of Baptism. At what point in history did the Roman Catholic Church not have valid baptism? Was it invalid after the split in 1054 or before, and what exactly renders their baptisms invalid? If they use and believe and preach the Trinity and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, what part of that formula renders it invalid? Do they have to be immersed in water as opposed to sprinkled? There are Protestant churches that do that. Is it the filioque? I really want to understand how you come to this conclusion.

And to Peter, who wonders why Orthodoxy still dialogues with other forms of Christianity after 50 years, I ask why he thinks that 50 years will undo several hundred years of cultural, political, historical and theological conflict and division? Those conflicts and divisions are compounded by more historical and cultural events that add even more layers of confusion to the dialogue and understanding even more difficult. It may be difficult, but walking away from dialogue makes unity impossible. And dialogue with lack of respect for the other party also renders dialogue and unity impossible.

[Eugene]

I find it interesting that Mr. Henderson's statement: "I certainly think that Baptism is really the most appropriate and canonical way to receive Protestants and most Roman Catholics (with Eastern Catholics it all depends on the form of their 'baptism')." goes unchallenged by anyone.

Well, I have to say that Baptism is NOT the canonical way to receive Protestants and Roman Catholics. The tradition to receive Christians baptized outside the Orthodox Church into the Church without Baptizm goes back to first senturies of Christianity and was widely accepted throuout the whole Church history. Even St. Basil the Great wrote on this issue. I could give some references to the literature (including official reports of Moscow Patriarchat) that presents a theological basis of this tradition (although it's all in Russian). The official position of the Moscow ROC is that Catholic Baptism is valid but not salvific without receiveng into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation. (Sorry, my English is poor, I may not use the terms properly).

[Mary Stavroula]

Thank you, Evgeny. I would like to do more research on this topic in the early Fathers of the Church. I'm wondering what you mean by "not salvific" without Chrismation. If the Baptism is valid, but not salvific, what is its purpose then as far as the Moscow Patriarchate is concerned? If you are baptized, but it is not salvific, does that mean you go to hell without chrismation in the Orthodox church?

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mary,

I'm wondering the same thing about the "not salvific" without Chrismation statement. I'm wondering if Evgeny is presenting the full thought of the text he is referencing. I don't know.

I have known many Orthodox Priest's for many years, I don't know of any that would say someone is going to hell without Chrismation in the Orthodox Church. I do know some that would be more quick to say that they don't want anyone to go to hell and some I think would prefer to take someone's place if such a thing was possible. Sort of like how a Mother or Father would experience suffering by seeing their child suffer and would prefer that they could suffer instead of their child. It is not the sort of notion that should be taken lightly. I don't think people can be doomed because of the circumstances of a persons life of which they may have no control over. It seems to me that these sort of matters are not for us particularly those of us who are not Priest's or Bishop's to explore or wrestle with. I have RC friend's who I most certainly do not think are doomed, I simply can't think that.

I copied one of the Monachos.net quotes from the front page below which is from the Didache the teaching of the Apostles

(Baptize thus: having first recited all these things, baptize 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit', in running water. If you have no running water, baptize in other water; if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water on the head thrice 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. Before baptism, the baptizer and baptized should fast, and any others who can: and you must order the baptized to fast thereafter for a day or two.)

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Edward Henderson]

Let me respond to the recent critique of my statement. Although, Protestants and Roman Catholics are often received into the Orthodox Church merely by chrismation, the most appropriate and canonical reception of Protestants and Catholics is by Baptism (ofcourse followed by Chrismation, Communion, etc.). I am in Helsinki right now and do not have access to the necessary texts the proove my point. I would advise anyone interested in this issue to read Father George Mellatinos' (Church of Greece) "I Confess One Baptism". He is very precise and thourough in his arguments for such a reception, even quoting holy fathers and hierarchal encyclicals. It is true that since the 18th century, the Russian Church (then governed by Peter's Holy Synod)did often receive such converts just by chrismation. So, I don't see those arguing for simply chrismating converts as 'innovators' as certain other traditionalists do. However, I still believe that Baptism (followed by Chrismation, Communion, etc.) is the most appropriate and canonical way to receive converts. Such is still the practice of many dioceses in the Russian Orthodox Church (MP), as well as in the Jerusalem and Alexandrian Patriarchates, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Monastic communities on Mount Athos, Mount Sinai, of Father Ephraim, and many other Orthodox communities. There are some good arguments on www.orthodoxinfo.com (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com).

Edward

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dear Mary

I have not seen any progress towards Orthodoxy by Protestants, but I have seen much movement away from Orthodoxy. 50 years of not listening and actively fighting against the Gospel of Christ leads me to believe that the people in the WCC and the NCCC, except the Orthodox, are not changing for the good for the bad.

So, let's do what Christ told his Apostles to do, shake the dust from our sandles and leave them and let the judgment of God deal with them.

[Eugene]

Actually, to be exact, in the history and practice of the Orthodox Church both ways of receiving non-orthodox were used - through Baptism and through Chrismation, so both of them should be considered canonical. It is usually left up to a local priest or Bishop to decide. I'm sure Fr. Raphael will explain it better.

As far as concern the term "salvific" - if a person dosn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven right after death, that doesn't necessarily mean that he is forever doomed to the hell. Quite the opposite - not many enter to Heavens right after death, but many more may join Heaven after Second Coming and Dread Judjment of Christ.

However, whether we like it or not, the Orthodox Church claims that the only way to enter Heaven is to join the Holy Church which is the body of Christ, whether in this life or in future life, noone can be saved outside the Church because salvation IS joining the body of Christ, this is why Baptism is not salvific without joining the Church.

Here is the link to the official document "Basic principles of relationshpis of the Russian Orthodox Church with non-orthodox denominations"
http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/s2000r13.htm

Let me trianslate some phrases (forgive me my poor translation):
1.15 The Orthodox Church claims by the words of Saints that salvation can only be achieved in the Church of Christ. However, denominations and parishes disconnected from the unity with the Orthodox Church has never been considered to be completely empty of the God's Grace. Disconnection from the communion with the Church leads to damage to the sacramental life, but not to its total disappearance. This is why those joining the Orthodox Chusrch from non-orthodox Christian denominations can be recieved not only through Baptism, but also through Chrismation or Confession. In spite of the break of unity, there is some non-complete communion which makes it possible to return to the full unity with the Church.

1.17 The fact that varoius pracitces of receiving non-orthodox into the Church exists (through Baptism, Chrismation or Confession) shows that the Orthodox Church differentiates non-orthodox denominations based on criteria of the how fully the faith, order and and norms of the spiritual life are preserved. However, using different practices of receiving into the Church, the Orthodox Church does not judge the measure of the fullnes of Grace in the non-orthodox denominations, considering it a mystery of God's judgement and providence.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

According to St. Nikodemos in his explanations in "The Rudder," baptism is the only canonical way to receive converts to Orthodoxy. However, he notes that converts have been and may be received via chrismation only because of economia. St. Nikodemos points out that what is done by exception does not become new canon law. Consequently, it is not 'canonical' to receive converts by chrismation alone, but is nonetheless acceptable based upon various situations and circumstances.

Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I would agree with most of the statements from the above posts.

Our discussion about Baptism is certainly not directly linked to trying to find a simple answer to the question, "who will be saved?" Rather Baptism refers to what we mean by salvation.

Salvation is defined by the Church as the conquering of sin & death through the Life of Christ. The way of salvation is fulfilled through the specific means which the Church provides. It is in this sense that we say that it is only through & within the Church that we find salvation.

The Church as the True Body of Christ is where true sacramental life is found. One cannot be separated from the other since Life cannot be separated from its Source. To say that sacraments are found outside of the Church is saying there are many Christs each of which contradict each other in fundamental expression of what the Faith is.

I think that the above is the foundation of an Orthodox understanding of what sacraments and thus Baptism is. Within this however has always been the accepted practice of economia. It is a serious misunderstanding of economia to see it as a contradiction of an Orthodox understanding of sacraments. Rather economia is precisely the use of discernment in an Orthodox understanding of sacraments.

Economia is the way in which the Church applies Her life to personal & other circumstances. The Church is 'free' in this sense, sovereign. She is not bound by a 'rule of sacraments' rather the sacraments flow from Her Life which is the Life of Christ. Thus the Church has received through different ways. Again it is crucial to understand that this does not mean that the Church teaches that 'anything goes'. The Church has a preferred method which really does affect how a person enters into the Life of the Church. But this is balanced by the state of the person who comes to the Church.

I think it is helpful to see that in this discussion there are really two distinct areas of disagreement. One is about where the Church & Her sacramental life is & is not; the other is of a proper use of economia. I think we often confuse the two issues & this leads to many disputes that are very unfruitful.

About where the Church is & is not. I think it is the Orthodox position that outside of the Church are not to be found true sacraments since outside of the Church is not to be found the True Faith. How for example can someone with a heretical understanding of the Holy Trinity he baptises in the name of be said to be truly baptising? How can Baptism be separated from the very life it springs from and should lead towards? There are many serious questions which could be added to here: eg in what sense does a Protestant minister who does not accept the sacramental reality of the Church(either as applying to his own charism or the church he is baptising someone into), in what sense does he really baptise? After all a baptism like any other sacrament is not accomplished by the uttering of certain words outside of the context of the Church as if the Church is irrelevant to the meaning of the words.

The second point however is the use of economia. On this side I also think there have been confusions about Church practice. Sometimes we are far too rigid in how we see this & do not recognise the loving way in which the Church meets the the person coming to Her.

An example of true economia is the following. The Uniate husband of one of our Russian Orthodox parishioners was in a hospital bed & dying. He & his wife desired that he be received into the Church. But how to do this properly? We couldn't very well drag a baptismal font into the hospital and put the poor man into it attached to tubes and machines. So a senior priest speaking for our bishop (both impeccable 'traditionalists') told me to baptise the poor man by sprinkling, using the rite for a dying child. I think this advice speaks volumes about true Church practice.

Economia however always will call for discernment. There will often not be total agreement on the exact way to go about things. We do the best we can confident that the grace of the Church covers all that is weak. In this way I think we make a bit of a mistake when we interpret St Basil for instance as providing us with an absolute rule. It is well known that other Holy Frs received former heretics & schismatics in a different way than he suggested. And he knew & fully acknowledged this. Sometimes he disagreed with the difference and sometimes he felt it was just a justifiable difference in practice. Perhaps then this is a helpful way to go forward in the current disagreement about receiving through Baptism or Chrismation. If we are all anchored in agreement about where the Church is then the difference in method of reception can be discussed in the context of discernment; of how best to receive people into the Church. We will find that common ground within Christ's Holy Church avoiding worldly compromises on the one hand & rigid legalism on the other.

If we all want the same thing for those who enter the Church: a true and profound life in Christ; then I think we will have gone a long way if we recognise that we each want this same thing despite any differences in method of reception.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M. Rallis]

Dear Father Raphael:

I was once told by an Orthodox priest, in the context of discussing similar issues of economia in regards to Orthodox Baptism, that when a person previously baptized outside of the Orthodox Church, is then accepted by Chrismation, it is through this Orthodox Sacrament of Chrismation, acting out side of time, that the former baptism becomes a mysterion. This way of looking at things has hepled me, but is it accurate?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Michael,

First I must stress that I am not an expert on the subject of baptism. I am only a priest who tries to read what our Holy Church says, who tries to apply this to the actual people who come to the Church and then compares this with how others receive people into the Church. As with most of what I write here at monachos I only mean it in the sense of considering it if one wants to.

You write that an Orthodox priest told you, "that when a person previously baptized outside of the Orthodox Church, is then accepted by Chrismation, it is through this Orthodox Sacrament of Chrismation, acting out side of time, that the former baptism becomes a mysterion."

Perhaps I do not understand what this priest meant but if he means that Orthodox Chrismation makes a non-Orthodox baptism a true Baptism of the Church I do not really agree. Whatever happens outside of the Church has a value unto itself; what happens within the Church may complete or fulfill what happened outside of the Church but I do not think it changes the past in the way suggested. It is like a person who having led a non-Orthodox life comes to the Church. The Church completes & fulfills whatever good there was in the past but still this does not change the fact that something essential was lacking. Saul became St Paul but he knew he was once Saul and perhaps in some way still struggled with 'old man' Saul. Indeed this understanding of St Paul's of the relationship between the new & old man in Christ is essential to his understanding of what the Church is & how it heals. I think we can apply this experience to our understanding of sacraments for the sacramental life is one of the main ways through which we enter the life of the Church.

From all of the above I tend to feel that the phrase "fills what was lacking" does describe what the Church accomplishes through economia.

The main point though I was trying to get at in my last post is that I think it is incorrect when we see the actions of economia as being somehow 'less sacramental'. Following this way of thinking we then try somehow to maintain that economia makes the previous non-Church action a sacrament. It is as if we have a mathematical equation in our head and we feel compelled to think that for the sacrament to be vailid you must have the 3 to go with the 2 to make 5.

To return to my point. What I am trying to say is that even though an action of the Church is by economia it is not 'less sacramental'. No- any action performed within & by the Church is intrinsically FULL- so if someone is received by Chrismation only they are still fully received sacramentally. Seen from this perspective economia means how the Church meets the actual personal condition of the person who comes to the Church; it does not mean that less was done or there was less grace than otherwise.

Of course we still feel rationally puzzled by all of this. "Do you mean that someone was received into the Church and never was baptised?" Well yes & no. If by baptism we mean the specific method of water & immersion 3 times we must remember that baptisms are at times not done in this way but yet are considered true baptisms, eg baptism of a child we fear may die.

And what of martyrs baptised in their blood? This the Church considers a true baptism and not just a figure of speech.

I would submit that Baptism is actually the pouring of the Holy Spirit upon someone coming into the Church. It is the way in which someone becomes a member of the Church for without the Holy Spirit we are not members in Christ with God as our Father. But the method cannot just be any arbitrary, individual 'calling upon the Holy Spirit.' Rather the sacramental actions which the Church accepts are valid because they are true symbols of the Body of Christ- the Church. And any way in which we enter the Church is a Baptism in its fullest sense.

Thus the Church actually baptises all who become Her members. To maintain that one can be a member of the Body of Christ and not baptised with the Holy Spirit is a contradiction in terms. But the Church as the Body wherein is truly found Father, Son & Holy Spirit is fully free to determine the method by which all of this is accomplished.
To retunr to the example of the mathematical equation. The Church does not need to find a 3 to make 5 from a 2. She is fully able to make the 5 from a 2 or even a -2.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Peter,

I thought you might find this to be of some interest.


St. Photios' Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit

"Who is it who says that Ambrose or Augustine or anyone else affirmed things contrary to the Lord's word? If it is I, I insult your fathers. But if you say it, while I deny it, then you insult them, and I condemn you as a blasphemer of the fathers. But, you retort, they have written so, and their works contain the statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. What of it? For if they had been instructed and did not change their opinion, if after just rebukes they were not persuaded (this is again another calumny against your fathers), then you may reckon your own deed and ascribe your own incorrigible opinion to their doctrine. Although in other things they are of equal stature with the best, what does it have to do with you? For if they have either slipped into some error or been subject to any negligence—for such is the human condition—when they were admonished, they did not contradict, nor were they contumacious when corrected. How will they who bear no resemblance to you help deliver you from ineluctable judgment? Although they were admirable by reason of many other qualities which manifest virtue and piety, they professed your godless error either through ignorance or through negligence. But if they in no manner shared the benefit of your advantages, why do you introduce their human defect as a mandate for your blasphemous belief? By your mandate, you attest that men who have legislated nothing of this sort are open transgressors, and so you demand a penalty for the uttermost blasphemy under the mask of benevolence and love. The results of your attempts do not benefit you. Observe the impious exaggeration and the stupidity of a base mind...

"I do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by them, but if they happened to express some such thing, if they happened to fall into something unbecoming, then I would imitate the good sons of Noe [Noah] and hide my father's shame, by using silence and gratitude as a cloak. I would not follow Chain's [Ham's] example, as do you. Rather, you are crueler and more impudent than he, for you publish abroad the shame of those you call your fathers. Now, he fell under the curse, not because he uncovered his father, but because he did not cover him. You, however, both uncover your fathers and vaunt your audacity. He tells the secret to his brothers; you tell yours not to brothers, or to one or two persons, but turning the whole world into a great theatre, you trumpet with all urgency and shamelessness that your fathers are ignominous. You revel in their shame and delight in their dishonor, and you seek out fellow revelers with whom to make more conspicuous festival of their disgrace and shame. But you did not consider that they were human, and that no one constituted from clay and mutable matter can maintain himself forever superior to a human blunder. Indeed, it happens that a trace of some blemish clings even to the best of men...

"Augustine and Jerome said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. How can one trust or vouch with confidence that their writings have not been maliciously altered after the passage of so much time? For do not think that you are the only one eager for impiety and bold in things not to be dared. Rather, from this very condition of your own mind, consider that nothing hindered the guileful enemy of our race from finding vessels for such a deed...

"Augustine and Jerome said these things. But perhaps they spoke out of the necessity of attacking the madness of the pagans or of refuting another heretical opinion or of condescending to the weakness of their hearers, or out of the necessity of any one of the many other reasons that human life daily presents. If such a statement perchance escaped their lips because of one or more of the above reasons, why do you make a dogma and law of what was not spoken by them with dogmatic significance and so bring irreparable ruin upon yourself by contentiously enlisting them in your dementia?...

"Indeed, in how many of our blessed and holy fathers is it possible to find such things! Look at Clement, the high priest of Rome, and the books which are known from him as Clementine (I do not say write, since ancient report has it that Peter the Coryphaeus commanded that they be written). Consider Dionysios of Alexandria, who from his opposition to Sabellios all but joins hands with Arius. Consider that splendor of sacred-martyrs, Methodios of Patara, who does not reject the belief that the angels had fallen into mortal desire and bodily intercourse, although they are of a bodiless nature and without passions. I shall pass over Pantaenos and Clement, as well as Pierios and Pamphilos and Theognostos, sacred men and teachers of sacred learning, whom we celebrate with great honor and acceptance, especially Pamphilos and Pierios, distinguished by the trials of martyrdom. Although we do not accept every one of their statements, we grant them honor for a distinguished life and for their other doctrines. Along with the aforementioned, we shall also pass by the Fathers from the West: Irenaeus, high priest of God, who received the supervision of sacred things in Lugdunum [i.e., Lyons], and his disciple Hippolytus, the martyr among high priests: men wonderful in many respects, though at times some of their writings do not refrain from digressing from exactitude...

"Will you then apply your disjunctive premise against all of these men and, with raised brows, say: "Either these men ought to be honored and their writings should not be rejected, or, if we reject some of their words, we should at the same time reject the men themselves"?

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Matthew Panchisin,

And a quotation for you: 'Photius' Mystagogy is the angry invective of a bitter man' (Henry Chadwick, East and West - rather paraphrased, since I don't have it sitting in front of me).

Not to discount your point of course. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/wink.gif Just to keep in mind Patriarch Photius' rather troubled relationship with tact.

INXC, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Matthew,

It is not the first time that a Patriarch has been said to be an angry or bitter man. But I prefer to keep much more in mind beyond the opinion of Professor Henry Chadwick conclusions. As you know Saint Photius was not only a great defender of Orthodoxy but did other things as well such as blessing the missionary activities of St Cyril and St Methodios.

It seems to me that Saint Photius's relationship with tact stuck good perhaps dripping honey might not hold up things as good, for his writings might appear to some to lack tact proceeded from a foundation built on the Truth. I think this to be so for Saint Photius has written the below as well.

"It is truly necessary that we observe all things, but above all, that which pertains to matters of Faith, in which but a small deviation represents a deadly sin".

"Nothing is dearer that the Truth".

As usual, it depends on how one looks at things. Personally from a more simple perspective, I know that when students learn iconography that the best teachers might be said to lack tact, but the students wouldn't dare to put forth an icon that lacked tact or present distortions lest the master iconographer should see the works of their hands and fear that he will have to give an account for the works of the students he taught to the master who created the hands. As for me I find the assessment of the Sainted Patriarch Photius' writings in Mystagogy to be wrong for I don't believe for one minute that 'Photius' Mystagogy is the angry invective of a bitter man' quite the contrary. I would say that the Saint might have had in mind different considerations that come from a different time and more profound perspective that upheld the Orthodox faith with a less superficial relationship with tack. If we believe that something can be said with tack will convey the same substance of something that is without tack then let us consider the actions of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ exemplified when he through the money changes out of the temple. Was He not troubled when He saw things happening in the temple that He did not agree with.

John 2:15
When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables.

Would it be accurate for me to conclude and interpret St. Photios' Mystagogy along the lines of woe to you insofar as money changing is one thing and doctrinal changes are quite another with different ramifications?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin