Baptism of those from non-Orthodox churches [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Peter Farrington

19-10-2006, 12:01 PM

Dear Mina

Thank you for raising this interesting question.

For myself one of the main determining factors is whether or not a particular Christian group has a sacramental view of baptism. In my own case I came from the Plymouth Brethren which explicitly rejected a sacramental view. When I was baptised in that group it was meant as a public statement that I had already become a Christian through a personal commitment to Christ at some time in the past.

Therefore when I became Orthodox I did not consider that I was being re-baptised since my previous baptism had not meant to accomplish what the Church means by baptism.

I am particularly interested in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. At present, as you know, when a Roman Catholic becomes Coptic Orthodox they will be baptised because the Coptic Orthodox Church does not accept Roman Catholic baptism. But if a Roman Catholic became Syrian Orthodox they would not be baptised.

Now it has always been the policy of our communion to receive those coming from the Chalcedonian community by confession of faith and rejection of error only. This has been our practice from the time of Dioscorus. We have never baptised Chalcedonians, recognising that they are in a strong sense, still of the Church, though from our point of view in error in some regards.

So I am interested in when the Roman Catholics ceased to be viewed in the same way as the Eastern Orthodox? I am thinking it could be related to several issues.

i. Roman Catholic baptism is not accepted because of the recent presence of missionary Catholicism in Egypt.

ii. Roman Catholic baptism is not accepted because the form of baptism is considered defective.

iii. Roman Catholic baptism is not accepted because there are other theological issues (though it is not clear to me when such a distinction was made).

Personally I do think that Roman Catholic baptism should be accepted, though perhaps Roman Catholics should be received by chrismation while Eastern Orthodox are still received without even chrismation.

Back to your initial questions.

i. I don't think that baptism can easily be accepted without a sacramental theology.

ii. Baptism of groups which are in degrees of error has always been accepted, even by our Church. It seems a more modern development that only Eastern Orthodox baptism is accepted.

Best wishes

Peter

Mina Soliman

20-10-2006, 01:46 AM

I absolutely agree that EO's should not be "re-chrismated" in light of recent events. A statement of faith is just fine for me, and that's how Antiochian Orthodox receive the OO's.

I think Herman made an interesting point. It reminds me of the story when St. Athanasius as a teen role played as a priest when baptizing a few of his friends. Interestingly enough, Pope Alexander saw this, and accepted their baptisms, only afterwards chrismating the group, and then taking St. Athanasius to his care.

I think Brother Peter also does a good evaluation of the situation. The number one reason I hear Coptic priests rejecting Catholic baptism (other than theological differences) is that it is done "incorrectly." However, I might be able to accept their baptism even if it wasn't "dunking," since the Didache shows that it's acceptable, especially in my opinion for baby baptisms. Sometimes, it bothers me how some priests (well one in particular) baptizes the babies in a manner where the baby could choke, which got me really considering the RC practice, which only reiterates the Didache.

Also, I like how Herman worded it:

It is not so much that a heterodox baptism is "accepted" as much as the Holy Spirit fulfills what is lacking in the form of heterodox baptism through Holy Chrismation.

And I agree with Andrew that there is no such thing as emergency baptism.

Now, here's the issue. Still, one has to ask where does one cross the line. Brother Peter gives us two conditions that's quite observable, especially in an OO view:

i. I don't think that baptism can easily be accepted without a sacramental theology.

ii. Baptism of groups which are in degrees of error has always been accepted, even by our Church. It seems a more modern development that only Eastern Orthodox baptism is accepted.

But where does one cross the line on II? Did the Holy Fathers accept the Arian baptism, or other heretical groups, or was there a specific line that was crossed?

Also, another question that comes to mind. Have we as OO been consistent in keeping that tradition when accepting EO "conversions," or was there a point in time where we treated EO's like RC's?

God bless.

Mina

Olga

20-10-2006, 08:47 AM

Dear Mina

Emergency baptisms as described by Kris are indeed permissible where it is possible an infant may die without being baptised. If the child survives, then it is necessary for that child to be chrismated to seal and validate the baptism.

Peter Farrington

20-10-2006, 10:42 AM

Dear Mina

In the patristic period there were many heretical groups whose baptisms were accepted. I can't put a list together just now but it included many really heretical groups, not just slightly heterodox. I think the main issue was whether or not in baptism they had the sacramental intention and understanding that the person was being made new in Christ, even if they had a defective Christology.

In the Coptic Orthodox tradition I can see no period, including those when the Coptic Orthodox were subject to genocide by the Chalcedonian forces and when the Chalcedonians insisted on re-baptising anti-Chalcedonians, when the position of receiving Chalcedonoians by confession was made stricter.

Certainly I have primary documentary evidence showing that this positive and eirenic form of reception was the rule in the 5th/6th/7th centuries and again in the 18th/19th centuries. So I can easily believe it to have been the position in between.

This is why I can only believe the stricter position towards Roman Catholics was probably due to their establishing a hierarchy in Egypt at the beginning of the 19th century and commencing missionary work among the Coptic Orthodox. The form of baptism current in Roman Catholicism is perhaps a reason given for the stricter attitude, but I cannot myself see any real reason for rejecting Roman Catholic baptism based on the historic position of the Coptic Orthodox.

This is why I would like to know if things would change if the Roman Catholics baptised by immersion, and whether the Coptic Orthodox really mean to say at present that they do not believe any Roman Catholics are actually baptised.

It is not entirely clear. How much is ecclesio-politics and how much is theology.

Best wishes

Peter

Herman Blaydoe

20-10-2006, 04:47 PM

But where does one cross the line on II? Did the Holy Fathers accept the Arian baptism, or other heretical groups, or was there a specific line that was crossed?In treating a cancer, different physicians may come up with different treatments. This one recommends surgery, to cut the cancer out. Another says remove the entire organ to make sure it is all gone. Another wants to try chemotherapy first to see if it responds before cutting anything. So too, the Church, has used different treatments for the cancers (heresies) that afflict it, based on the training, skill, knowledge of the bishops at the time and the will, degree of sickness, and attitude of the patient at the time. As Fr. Raphael says elsewhere, one size does not fit all.
Also, another question that comes to mind. Have we as OO been consistent in keeping that tradition when accepting EO "conversions," or was there a point in time where we treated EO's like RC's?I don't know and this doesn't really have much to do with the quote but I thought it a convenient lead in. My daughter attends St. George Antiochian Church in Indianapolis. They have a large community of Ethiopians who attend, including the deacon. I have to assume they were originally Coptic. I don't even care to ask "how" they were accepted, but I am certainly very glad to see them. I leave the rest to the priest and his bishop.

Kosta

20-10-2007, 08:19 AM

(Re)Baptism is still the policy of the JP , ROCOR, MT Athos, and many of the bishops of Greece concerning those 'christians' outside the Church.

The practise of chrismation only, for protestants is a modern practise, thanks to ecumenism and convenience. (im sorry if this sounds harsh but i have never read or heard of a logical patristic explanation for this practise. Ive heard both sides of the story thru reading and speaking to clergy and bishops and they agree that its basically an anomaly)

The canons on baptism recognize 3 ways to accept heretics into the Church.

1. Baptism in the Trinity and Threefold immersion (a proper baptism). This was limited to heretics who rejected the Trinitarian formula and/or were baptised using one immersion. One group were the montanists who baptised in the name of the Father and the Son and Priscilla. The Eunomians were another group for they baptised using one immersion.

2. By Chrismation only. Arians were recieved by chrismation only because they followed the proper form of a trinitarian formula and triple immersion but did not have a proper understanding of the Trinity.

3. By a confession of Faith and denunciation of heresies.- In Orthodoxy this method was officially accepted in the council of Trullo in 691 a.d.

If i remember correctly it was in use for quite some time for Nestorians and was expanded to include the non-chalcedon in Trullo 691 a.d.. Basically both groups perform baptism using the correct Trinitarian formula and triple immersion BUT they also have an identical understanding of the Holy Trinity. While the other groups mentioned above broke away before or during Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381 a.d. the Nestorians and non-chalcedon accept the Creed in its proper understanding, fully accepting the ecumenicity of the first two councils. These groups have no variation whatsoever concerning the Creed or the all-Holy Trinity.

Some believe the RC would fall under this category, and they would have, only if they still baptised using triple immersion. The various ways latins were recieved in the Church especially among russians has to do with socio-political reasons and needs a thorough study of history during the middle ages.

Here are a list of the canons of the church:

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/par1.htm#2.

Demetrios Galanidis

20-10-2007, 01:33 PM

Thanks, Kosta, for using "(Re)Baptism" instead of 'rebaptism' - there is only one Baptism. Just a pet peeve of mine, I'm afraid.

David C.

15-07-2008, 09:49 PM

Zakk Price

15-07-2008, 10:22 PM

Hello there anyone

I am a Christian and used to attend the Anglican church here in Corfu.

However, when I broke my leg my local Pappas, Father Michael, was so concerned and gave me pastoral visits that I began to attend his church. I now wish to become part of the Orthodox church.

My problem is that we think that the Bishop will not recognise my baptism. I was christened as a baby in the Methodist church (which counts for nothing in my view) and then at the age of 24 I confessed my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and was baptised by immersion in an evangelical church.

I really do not see that I must be baptised again but I would be glad to have someone's view on the subject and the protocol involved.

Thank you in advance,

David

My advice - which may be little better than straw, since I am a recent convert - is to simply do what your bishop asks. St. Ignatius tells us to obey our bishops as we would obey the Lord Himself. The case of how we will be received into the Church is no different.

So, basically, don't worry about it. Let your bishop do that.

- Dionysios Zachary Price

Herman Blaydoe

15-07-2008, 11:04 PM

To be blunt, baptism is the physical sign of being a member of the Church. You recognize that you are not currently a member of the Church. You need to have an Orthodox baptism. Historically this has been accomplished in one of two ways: baptism or a baptism received previously is corrected through Chrismation where the Holy Spirit is counted on to provide what was lacking, making what was previously received Orthodox. It is up to the bishop to decide what is appropriate, that is why they get to wear the funny hats. At any rate it is a baptism not a "rebaptism".

Andrew

16-07-2008, 01:04 AM

My opinion doesn't matter much, but if I were you I would get baptized. Years later you will be thankful you did. Also, if you ever want to be a priest, you will have no canonical impediments in regards to actions and morality if you live a righteous life after your baptism. In addition, there is something special about baptism. This is a controversial point to some, but many gerondas say that converts who are not baptized have a much more difficult time spiritually than those who enter into the Church through baptism.

I Confess One Baptism is a very good book on the canonical case for baptism of all converts.

But anyways, if you are received through chrismation you are still Orthodox just as much as anyone else... but honestly, from personal experience, I strongly recommend baptism!

Paul Cowan

16-07-2008, 02:58 AM

If you are not baptised you are not permitted to partake of the Holy mysteries. (This is very hard for my family to comprehend all of them being Protestant.) Also you must leave at the proper time in the service (supposedly). You can not do confession or participate in any of the sacraments. What good does it do to come to the finish line only to stop and watch others win the race? There are many threads on Baptism on Monachos. Perhaps a search will help with some of your questions?

Paul

David C.

16-07-2008, 05:10 AM

Hello Peter,

I was very interested to see that you came to Orthodoxy via the Plymouth Brethren. I, too, joined the Brethren when I met my wife and have many happy memories of morning meetings and the deep spirituality of the Christian folk that we met there.

I have lived in Corfu for more than twenty five-years and have made a regular round trip of two hours to attend the Anglican church in Corfu town. However, when I broke my leg, our local Papas (who is Romanian) made pastoral visits, despite the fact that I had never been to his church. I found him to be a man of great spirituality (which is not, sadly, always the case) and began to attend his church which is only a few minutes drive away from my house.

So, I have begun my pilgrimage towards Orthodoxy and I have found your comments with regard to baptism very helpful.

Best wishes and thanks,

David bakerou@otenet.gr

Kosta

16-07-2008, 07:55 AM

The practise of receiving heterodox thru chrismation only is applied in the canons to various schismatic offshoots who originated from the Orthodox Church.
The canons allow Nestorians and Monophysites (miaphysites if you prefer) to be brought into the Church thru a confession of Faith and a denunciation of heresies only, and straight to Holy Communion without the need for chrismation .

The reason for this is because they follow the identical form as the Orthodox practise; which is Triple Immersion in the name of the Trinity. These 2 groups also have an identical understanding of the Holy Trinity since they accept the first 2 Ecumenical councils.

Oikonomia granted to RC and protestants is not without controversy. While many baptise in the Trinitarian formula they do not baptise using triple immersion nor are the protestants an offshoot of the Orthodox church. Some OthodoxChurches simply do not practise oikonomia on these groups (JP, Old Calendarists, last i checked ROCOR as well)

The whole concept is that a heterodox baptism becomes a grace-filled Orthodox baptism upon reception into the Church and not a second before. Whatever was lacking or missing in a heterodox baptism is made full and correct tpon being Chrismated and Communed.

Emergency Baptism by a layman for a dying person is not exactly the same. If the person survives then he must be baptised and the emergency baptism is as if it never took place.

Mary

16-07-2008, 01:47 PM

Dear Mr David,

If you have the option to be baptized, please do! I got 'baptized' as an evangelical. I was given the choice of 'just chrismation' or the whole works, including Baptism. I wanted it all. Mostly because of my greedy personality, and I always want as much as I can get, and if there's more, I want that too.

Although they say that baptisms done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 'acceptable', that's such a small part of the entire service!!! If you have an opportunity to attend some one else's baptism before you decide what to do for yourself, it would be great. The Orthodox Baptism is REAL! There are no words to describe the beauty of it. God is there, and so are the saints. And the angels. You just Know they're there.

As an evangelical, I felt I was showing others my decision to follow Christ. I had a 'testimony' to share and stuff like that. It was very external. My mom took it as an opportunity to lay more guilt on me, telling me that from now on, I shouldn't do anything wrong because others would be watching me, and I shouldn't ruin God's reputation. The spot light was on me, and it was embarrassing, because I wasn't as good at being on display as the others were. I didn't have a fascinating story to tell, to captivate the audience. That is not baptism. That's just getting dunked in water.

In the Orthodox church, it's not dunking in the water. It's Birth. A new birth. And that is a miracle!

Oh, please don't let it pass you by! That would be like, sitting on the hillside with the Crowd that Christ miraculously fed, and when the basket of miracle bread and fish comes to you, you say: "No thanks. I brought my picnic lunch." No, no, no! Toss your own picnic lunch, it is ordinary! Get as much as you can eat of the miraculous picnic lunch! It's a once in a life time opportunity.

In Christ,
Mary.

Father David Moser

16-07-2008, 03:49 PM

Some OthodoxChurches simply do not practise oikonomia on these groups (JP, Old Calendarists, last i checked ROCOR as well)

Yes, it is still the case in ROCOR except when there is some reason why it is not adviseable or profitable (for example when I received the 90 year old Roman Catholic husband of an Orthodox wife - due to his health, it was permitted to receive him by chrismation) but this is only possible with an specific blessing from the ruling bishop.

Emergency Baptism by a layman for a dying person is not exactly the same. If the person survives then he must be baptised and the emergency baptism is as if it never took place.

No, this is not correct. If there is an emergency baptism, then if the person survives, they come/are brought to the Church and the priest does not baptise again, but does all the other prayers and the sacrament of chrismation that was not done at the time of the emergency baptism. But an emergency baptism is a real baptism and we do not pretend that it never took place.

Fr David Moser

Misha

16-07-2008, 04:00 PM

ut many gerondas say that converts who are not baptized have a much more difficult time spiritually than those who enter into the Church through baptism. ... but honestly, from personal experience, I strongly recommend baptism!

In the Orthodox church, it's not dunking in the water. It's Birth. A new birth. And that is a miracle! ........
Get as much as you can eat of the miraculous picnic lunch! It's a once in a life time opportunity.

Dear Andrew and Mary ,THANK YOU for your inspiring words!

Dear Mr David, i am a bit jealous,because i have been baptized when i was a baby and i couldn't appreciate enough the gift given to me.

I wish i could take your place in the Holy Baptismal Font :)

Mary

16-07-2008, 08:10 PM

Dear Andrew and Mary ,THANK YOU for your inspiring words!

Dear Mr David, i am a bit jealous,because i have been baptized when i was a baby and i couldn't appreciate enough the gift given to me.

I wish i could take your place in the Holy Baptismal Font :)

Dear Misha,

No need to be jealous! Unlike me, you didn't have much chance of sinning the week after your baptism! =)

And to be totally honest, it wasn't my own baptism that I remember with such vivid detail, it was my children's which happened a few weeks after ours. I think I was so caught up in what was happening during my own, that I really have no memory of it. But my children's and the baptisms of others' babies that we've attended since then... that's what really affects me. It keeps getting better and better. I totally love the beginning were you get to renounce the devil, three times! How great is that! And to join yourself to Christ, three times, how perfect! I love to go over that part, silently, along with the godparents who are speaking for the child. And when I hear them repeat the creed, it's like I'm hearing it and saying it for the first time. I love the Creed! It's especially powerful in the baptism service. (I never said the Creed when I was protestantly baptised!!!!)

But every time, I hear more of the prayers, I'm affected by different parts of the service, and so, it makes me feel like more of it becomes a part of me. I dunno. I wouldn't miss anyone's baptism =)

In Christ,
Mary.

Kosta

17-07-2008, 04:31 AM

Thank-you Father for the correction. From what i understand emergency baptism by sprinkling (or should i say using water regardless if its sprinkled), if that person survives, he is not required to be (re)baptised- but he cannot be recieved into the priesthood (according to canon 12 of the council of Neocaesaria).

Emergency baptism in the 'air' for a dying infant is allowed, in this emergency no water is neccesary, but if the child survives he will be baptised, and the air baptism is rendered irrelevant. The only thing is. i was told that this "air baptism" is peculiar to greek Orthodoxy and not recognized as a form of emergency baptism by all the Orthodox churches. I would definately like to hear opinions on this.

Julia Hayes

25-07-2008, 03:08 PM

Hello there anyone

I am a Christian and used to attend the Anglican church here in Corfu.

However, when I broke my leg my local Pappas, Father Michael, was so concerned and gave me pastoral visits that I began to attend his church. I now wish to become part of the Orthodox church.

My problem is that we think that the Bishop will not recognise my baptism. I was christened as a baby in the Methodist church (which counts for nothing in my view) and then at the age of 24 I confessed my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and was baptised by immersion in an evangelical church.

I really do not see that I must be baptised again but I would be glad to have someone's view on the subject and the protocol involved.

Hi David,
On the matter or protocol, because a question has arisen about the fact that I was received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation (I was Anglican) my spiritual father here in Greece contacted the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece and was told that Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans are accepted by Chrismation alone, but may be re-baptized if they so wish. All other Protestants should be baptized.
God bless.
Julia

David C.

26-07-2008, 04:39 AM

Thank you Mary. I have read your reply with great interest and am grateful to you for taking the time. Suffice it to say that I am still considering my options but am moving towards being baptised. Thank you! David

David C.

26-07-2008, 06:11 AM

Hello Julia

Thank you so much for your reply to my enquiry.

After initially rejecting, out of hand, the thought of being baptised once more I am gradually coming round to the idea after receiving so many encouraging messages.

Thank you again,

David

Hieromonk Ambrose

16-01-2009, 10:46 AM

Fr Seraphim was a very intelligent man and a man who, from his baptism on, lived a pious and Godly life.
I looked at the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_Rose
and it says that Fr Seraphim was baptized Methodist and received into Orthodoxy by Chrismation. Is there a way to check this? Chrismation is indeed quite possible since he was received in 1962, long before some sections of ROCA had conceived the desire to baptize all converts. That began in the 1970s, about 10 years *after* Fr Seraphim's reception.

"Born the youngest of three children to Frank and Esther Rose in San Diego, Eugene was raised in California, where he would remain for the rest of his life. He was baptized in the Methodist faith when he was fourteen years old....

"This culminated in Eugene's decision to enter the Church through chrismation in 1962."

M.C. Steenberg

16-01-2009, 10:52 AM

Hieromonk Ambrose

16-01-2009, 11:01 AM

To be clear: if one is received by the economia of chrismation, this fulfils and perfects baptism into the fulness of its Orthodox mystery - and from this point forward, one can (and ought) to be described as baptised Orthodox.
Father Matthew,

In my years as a priest I have to say I have not heard "baptized Orthodox" used in any other sense than someone who has been baptized Orthodox. In other words "baptized Orthodox" is not used for someone who has been received by one or other of the two other modes of reception: either Chrismation or Confession of faith. Could you say from where you obtain your own definition?

Herman Blaydoe

16-01-2009, 11:47 AM

Father Matthew,

In my years as a priest I have to say I have not heard "baptized Orthodox" used in any other sense than someone who has been baptized Orthodox. In other words "baptized Orthodox" is not used for someone who has been received by one or other of the two other modes of reception: either Chrismation or Confession of faith. Could you say from where you obtain your own definition?

Father bless,
I would say it seems rather obvious and reasonable. It emphasizes that all Orthodox Christians are "created equal" I don't think there is an "official" definition, unless your bishop has specifically pronounced on it. If a person has had their baptism "perfected" through chrismation, they are therefore a baptized Orthodox Christian. What is the alternative, a not-baptized Orthodox? To make a distinction is not wise nor prudent. It would imply that Orthodox Christians received through chrismation are somehow "lesser" Christians. That attitude leads to groups "rebaptizing" even ordained clergy which creates a theological morass.

Father, what, specifically WRONG with the terminology? Are Orthodox Christians who have been received by chrismation deserving of being differentiated, and for what purpose?

Herman the wondering Pooh

Hieromonk Ambrose

16-01-2009, 12:17 PM

Father bless,
I would say it seems rather obvious and reasonable. It emphasizes that all Orthodox Christians are "created equal" I don't think there is an "official" definition, unless your bishop has specifically pronounced on it. If a person has had their baptism "perfected" through chrismation, they are therefore a baptized Orthodox Christian. What is the alternative, a not-baptized Orthodox? To make a distinction is not wise nor prudent. It would imply that Orthodox Christians received through chrismation are somehow "lesser" Christians. That attitude leads to groups "rebaptizing" even ordained clergy which creates a theological morass.

Father, what, specifically WRONG with the terminology? Are Orthodox Christians who have been received by chrismation deserving of being differentiated, and for what purpose?

One of my parishioners was received at Panteleimon on Mount Athos by the third method, Confession of faith. If he were to say that he was "baptized Orthodox" by the monks of Athos I would feel he is guilty of deception. Likewise I would not take kindly to those converts whom I have received by Chrismation making statements that they were "baptized Orthodox" by my humble self.

Why on earth would someone who has been received by Confession of faith (with neither Baptism nor Chrismation) make the statement that he was "baptized Orthodox." Certainly the non-Orthodox Baptism is valourised by entry into the Church and contact with the Church's limitless treasury of grace. But to term that event a "baptism"...?

To make a distinction is not wise nor prudent. It would imply that Orthodox Christians received through chrismation are somehow "lesser" Christians.
If memory serves the holy Fathers do make a distinction. Don't the sacred canons forbid the ordination of someone received other than by Baptism? So our holy Fathers did make a distinction in this matter although I do not think that modern bishops observe this canon. Is anyone aware of it?

Herman Blaydoe

16-01-2009, 01:59 PM

One of my parishioners was received at Panteleimon on Mount Athos by the third method, Confession of faith. If he were to say that he was "baptized Orthodox" by the monks of Athos I would feel he is guilty of deception. Likewise I would not take kindly to those converts whom I have received by Chrismation making statements that they were "baptized Orthodox" by my humble self.

Father, please forgive my presumption, but are you saying that this person was never baptized in any way? Sounds highly irregular to me. I can't imagine how even the monks of Mt. Athos would justify receiving someone into the Church without any sort of baptism. I was under the impression that to be received by confession of Faith, some sort of "orthodox" baptism has been undergone at some point in their lives. Am I mistaken?

Why on earth would someone who has been received by Confession of faith (with neither Baptism nor Chrismation) make the statement that he was "baptized Orthodox." Certainly the non-Orthodox Baptism is valourised by entry into the Church and contact with the Church's limitless treasury of grace. But to term that event a "baptism"...?

Well, if you have a problem with the terminology, that person can simply say that they were received into the Church. But to imply that they are not baptized Christians is problematic at best.

If memory serves the holy Fathers do make a distinction. Don't the sacred canons forbid the ordination of someone received other than by Baptism?

Wow, first I've heard of this and I suspect there are not a few Orthodox clergy out there who might also be surprized and somewhat concerned. I know several who would be in "violation" if such a canon exists.

So our holy Fathers did make a distinction in this matter although I do not think that modern bishops observe this canon. Is anyone aware of it?

I would certainly like to confirm the existance of this canon and its actual wording, but I honestly do NOT think the Fathers made such a distinction. Orthodox is Orthodox, we don't have second-class citizens in the Kingdom. Or so it seems to this bear of very little brain.

Herman the confused Pooh

Hieromonk Ambrose

16-01-2009, 02:10 PM

Father, please forgive my presumption, but are you saying that this person was never baptized in any way? Sounds highly irregular to me. I can't imagine how even the monks of Mt. Athos would justify receiving someone into the Church without any sort of baptism. I was under the impression that to be received by confession of Faith, some sort of "orthodox" baptism has been undergone at some point in their lives. Am I mistaken?

Roman Catholic baptism.

I would certainly like to confirm the existance of this canon and its actual wording, but I honestly do NOT think the Fathers made such a distinction.
I am asking around to get some confirmation or denial of this canon and will get back to you when something turns up. But if it exists it is obviously observed in the breach these days.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-01-2009, 03:04 PM

Herman Blaydoe

16-01-2009, 03:14 PM

Roman Catholic baptism.

And herein lies the rub. Once they are received into Orthodoxy, it is now an Orthodox baptism, even if they were not received into the Church specifically by baptism. The baptism received earlier was not simply "accepted" as "valid", nor was it "validated", it was perfected, or if you prefer, completed. It is now an Orthodox baptism. If it isn't, then these people are indeed some sort of second-class citizens, in that what they are is somehow something less. And there are those in certain circles who do indeed see things in this manner, that is why there is this problem with OTHER monks on Athos who "rebaptize" communing Orthodox Christians. Even though I really do not like the word "rebaptize", in essence, that is exactly what it is, a second baptism that flies in the face of the Creed which states that we believe in ONE BAPTISM. To require a full baptism for someone coming from outside Orthodoxy is well within the perview of the bishop. This is not a "rebaptism", it is simply an Orthodox baptism, even if people got dunked elsewhere. See Acts 19:1-10. But to require the "rebaptism" of someone already received by another Orthodox bishop into the Church does not uphold good order and discipline within the Church. Therefore, at least to this bear of very little brain, it seems prudent to emphasize that reception into the Church does, in fact, require a baptism, and that previously received baptisms from heterodox traditions are not "accepted", "validated" but are completed to become Orthodox baptisms, and are not a lesser kind of baptism.

I am asking around to get some confirmation or denial of this canon and will get back to you when something turns up. But if it exists it is obviously observed in the breach these days.

I look forward to the edification. I suspect that if such a canon exists, it was to address a specific problem with a specific heresy. But as has been discussed in other threads, not all canons are universally applicable. That is why we have bishops, to decide which canons are appropriate to the situation at hand.

I am a bear of very little brain. I don't always get it right. I can only explain to the best of my ability my comprehension of the teaching of the Church. As always I look forward to enlightenment by better minds than mine if my understanding is in error.

Herman the Pooh

Owen Jones

16-01-2009, 03:57 PM

I actually participated in a service, conducted by a monastic, to repudiate my former heresies, prior to my chrismation. How many of you can say that!!!!

Father David Moser

16-01-2009, 04:06 PM

I actually participated in a service, conducted by a monastic, to repudiate my former heresies, prior to my chrismation. How many of you can say that!!!!

Probably many of us who are adult converts to Orthodoxy since the renunciation of heresies is a part of the service used for the reception of converts from other faiths. Since I rarely receive anyone into the Church by any manner except baptism, I do not often use the renunciations as part of the service. However, I do use them for all adults coming to the Church as a part of their final catechesis and/or confession before baptism. [Recently one LDS man that converted, when I asked him to renounce various LDS beliefs replied, "I can't renounce that - I never believed it in the first place" - he wasn't really a practicing Mormon]

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

16-01-2009, 05:09 PM

Probably many of us who are adult converts to Orthodoxy since the renunciation of heresies is a part of the service used for the reception of converts . . .

Including me - renunciations (of things I didn't even know, much less believed) and spitting at the devil.

I am asking around to get some confirmation or denial of this canon and will get back to you when something turns up. But if it exists it is obviously observed in the breach these days.

Not least by Metropolitan Kallistos (who was received by chrismation).

Herman Blaydoe

16-01-2009, 06:20 PM

With great respect for both Hieromonk Ambrose & Fr Dn Matthew I would say you both have a point.

There are some who believe that the Orthodox entry into the Church (chrismation, confession of faith, etc) fills what was lacking in the non-Orthodox sacrament (ie baptism).

This is in line with my understanding.

When such occurs though (eg someone was received through chrismation) I think that is better to just say, "they were received through chrismation." Partly this is a practical matter I suppose- we tend to emphasize what was done when the person entered into Orthodoxy.

Why is that, do you think? I still feel the emphasis of this distinction does more harm than good. It does nothing to "correct" the situation and really only serves to point out those received by chrismation as somehow "different". Along with the old cradle/convert dichotomy, it only seems to further divide the Body of Christ.

I freely concede that the economia of chrismation reception has probably been "abused" in some cases but far be it from me to question the bishop's perogative and responsibility.

But I think this is also affected by how we see the relationship between the way in which the person entered Orthodoxy and how this affects where they came from.

Some believe the Orthodox entry provides a sacramental reality to what came before while others believe the sacramental reality starts only with ones entry into Orthodoxy.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Looking at the "case history" of the lives of the saints, there have been some relatively questionable "baptisms" which did not prevent sainthood. One saint was a pagan actor who was making fun of Christians, conducting a mock baptism onstage. Nonetheless the Holy Spirit evidently chose to sanctify this action and the actor became a committed Christian at that moment and was soon martyred thereafter. We often refer to a "baptism by blood" for some martyred before a "proper" baptism could be arranged. Evidently God is not the prisoner of rites nor is His scramental reality holden to our concept of chronos. We know when we DECLARE a person "Orthodox" but it is a little bit more difficult to discern when God MAKES someone Orthodox. I for one will not begrudge our bishops their funny hats. Those crowns may conceal ice cubes for the many headaches they no doubt get dealing with all these situations...

OK, I promise to shut up now (at least on this thread)
Herman the "not that I have any strong opinions on the topic" Pooh

Matthew Namee

16-01-2009, 06:55 PM

Why is that, do you think? I still feel the emphasis of this distinction does more harm than good. It does nothing to "correct" the situation and really only serves to point out those received by chrismation as somehow "different". Along with the old cradle/convert dichotomy, it only seems to further divide the Body of Christ.
I'm not sure what the problem is. When I say I was "baptized Orthodox," I just mean that I was baptized in the Orthodox Church. My wife was baptized a Protestant and was received into Orthodoxy through chrismation. It's a distinction of fact; for her to say she was "baptized Orthodox" would imply that she was baptized by an Orthodox priest, which she was not. It doesn't make her any less Orthodox at all.

In a way, this is a question about history - personal history. An Orthodox convert might symbolically view himself as "baptized Orthodox" even if he was baptized a Protestant and received into Orthdoxy through chrismation. But symbolism and sentiment aside, not making the distinction is just misleading.

About the ordination issue... St. Alexis Toth, who had been a Uniate priest, was received through confession of faith only (he wasn't even re-ordained). St. Tikhon received an ex-Episcopal priest, Ingram Irvine, through chrismation followed by the standard Orthodox ordination (deacon and then priest). I could cite many more examples from recent history. If ever there was a canon, it's certainly fallen out of use.

Father David Moser

16-01-2009, 07:11 PM

I suspect that if such a canon exists, it was to address a specific problem with a specific heresy. But as has been discussed in other threads, not all canons are universally applicable. That is why we have bishops, to decide which canons are appropriate to the situation at hand.

You might look at this post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=66695&postcount=23) which cites a canon about the ordination (or ban thereof) of those who have received an "emergency baptism". I haven't looked at this canon to see if it applies to the current discussion, but it is at least a starting place.

Fr David Moser

Anthony

16-01-2009, 07:20 PM

The following seems to be the relevant canon, with footnotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It does not seem to be directly about sprinkling (as claimed by the post linked to), and also has some qualifications.

Canon 12

If any one be baptized when he is ill, forasmuch as his [profession of] faith was not voluntary, but of necessity [i.e. though fear of death] he cannot be promoted to the presbyterate, unless on account of his subsequent [display of] zeal and faith, and because of a lack of men.

(Notes from the CE)

The word used in the Greek for baptized is illuminated (φωτισθῇ), a very common expression among the ancients.

Zonaras explains that the reason for this prohibition was the well-known fact that in those ages baptism was put off so as the longer to be free from the restraints which baptism was considered to impose.

Hieromonk Ambrose

17-01-2009, 01:52 AM

You might look at this post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=66695&postcount=23) which cites a canon about the ordination (or ban thereof) of those who have received an "emergency baptism". I haven't looked at this canon to see if it applies to the current discussion, but it is at least a starting place.

Thank you, Father. It is not quite the canon I am looking for, but it does show the conciliar distinction in the modes of reception/Baptism which prevent some Orthodox men from being ordained.

M.C. Steenberg

17-01-2009, 10:50 AM

Dear Father Ambrose,

I was referring to a theological distinction, rather than suggesting a practice of how to distinguish ways one enters into the Church.

Theologically, there is only one baptism, and that is the true baptism of the Church. Chrismation uniques one to this baptism. It may not be how one was received into the Church, but it is the baptism that one now possesses: else the chrismation means nothing.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Hieromonk Ambrose

17-01-2009, 11:10 AM

I was referring to a theological distinction, rather than suggesting a practice of how to distinguish ways one enters into the Church.

Theologically, there is only one baptism, and that is the true baptism of the Church. Chrismation uniques one to this baptism. It may not be how one was received into the Church, but it is the baptism that one now possesses: else the chrismation means nothing.

INXC, Dcn Matthew
Dear Father,

Because I have never encountered the use of "baptized Orthodox" in conjunction with the ceremony and the person who was received either by Chrismation or by Confession of faith, I am having trouble with that unfamiliar terminology.

Do you have any examples from theologians, bishops or Councils who use the term "baptized Orthodox" in such circumstances?

And of course we have a very sticky problem with those theologians and bishops who do in fact accept the full validity of such as Roman Catholic and Anglican baptism. In their eyes the Chrismation service which brings such a person into Orthodoxy is certainly not any sort of baptism since the Catholic or Anglican baptism is judged to be fully efficacious and genuine. And to complicate matters even more, some of these theologians and bishops are now starting to deny that the chrismation service effected on a convert is even a sacramental event but merely a mode of reception by anointing. Oy vey! But that's a whole different can of worms.

Hieromonk Ambrose

17-01-2009, 11:21 AM

This question ought to be carried over into this thread which is focused on reception into the Church.

I looked at the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_Rose
and it says that Fr Seraphim was baptized Methodist and received into Orthodoxy by Chrismation. Is there a way to check this?

Chrismation is indeed very likely since he was received in 1962, long before some sections of ROCA had conceived the desire to baptize all converts. That began in the 1970s, about 10 years *after* Fr Seraphim's reception. At the time of his reception ROCA was adhering to the three different modes of reception given in the Hapgood Service Book and which are simply the centuries old practice of the Russian Church. It is actually quite *unlikely* that Fr Seraphim was baptized at reception.

"Born the youngest of three children to Frank and Esther Rose in San Diego, Eugene was raised in California, where he would remain for the rest of his life. He was baptized in the Methodist faith when he was fourteen years old....

"This culminated in Eugene's decision to enter the Church through chrismation in 1962."

Does anyone have further information on this?

Ken McRae

17-01-2009, 12:05 PM

St. Tikhon received an ex-Episcopal priest, Ingram Irvine, through chrismation followed by the standard Orthodox ordination (deacon and then priest). I could cite many more examples from recent history. If ever there was a canon, it's certainly fallen out of use.

I'm not so sure it has fallen out of use. Since we're speaking in terms of recent history, I am told that many monasteries on Athos will not accept converts from RC-ism who have been received into Orthodoxy by any other way than baptism; that is to say, they will not accept them as permanent residents of those respective monasteries; unless they agree to be baptized first.

I am also told that they (those same Athonite monasteries) have been known to baptize converts who have already been received by chrismation; not only reversing the order of the sacraments, but in effect confessing thereby some deficiency or lack in the sacrament of chrismation. It is a wonder that they don't "re-chrismate" the persons as well.

Knowing how the great Athonite fathers were for canonical order and rule, I cannot imagine many monasteries ruling that way on the question if there was no such canon; or at the very least, a canon which tended to leave itself open to that kind of application, conditionally; and if there was no tradition or historical precedent for it. The dispute seems to be, therefore, not so much over those precise conditions, as to whether or not such conditions have been sufficiently met, to warrant that application.

Here is another question I would like to throw out there, for you all: Is it possible for a convert being received into Orthodoxy in 2009, to be baptized in one rite and chrismated into a different rite? In other words, seperate the two sacraments, so that they are performed on two different dates, in two different rites?

It is not quite the canon I am looking for, but it does show the conciliar distinction in the modes of reception/Baptism which prevent some Orthodox men from being ordained.

And yet there is still conditional provision(s) made for a possible future ordination, despite that impediment: "unless on account of his subsequent [display of] zeal and faith, and because of a lack of men," it says; which seems to imply that a future ordination is not totally out of the question, if those particular conditions are sufficiently met. I am eager to see the canon in question, nonetheless.

Vasiliki D.

17-01-2009, 01:20 PM

In the bible there is a distinction between Baptism of water and Baptism of the spirit. How where the early Christians baptised, when was chrismation introduced and formalised?

Next, there are many Saints who say and do opposite things to each other at what point do we the Orthodox lay people use the actions of modern Saints as representative and even to override pre-existing traditions or canons?

I just notice it is a general theme in Orthodox discussions for someone (I am guilty of this) to say ... Elder so and so or Saint such and such did THIS on this matter and therefore it IS SO! It is almost as if this is an OK practice for us to do this and I wonder is this infact acceptable in such discussions? I was hoping for some pastoral assistance? I am confused ...when we are talking about baptism and chrismation and one person says, such and such did it THIS way ...and then the next person says, so and so did it THAT way ... then friction starts to emerge ... and it doesnt seem to link back to a common thread of what is Orthodox! :) Forgive me for my uneducated rambling ...

M.C. Steenberg

17-01-2009, 01:35 PM

Dear all,

I am sorry I brought this up: I was attempting to make a theological point about the nature of baptism, not the practice of reception. Forgive the 'can of worms' to which it has led: it was not intentional, and doesn't seem terribly profitable.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Herman Blaydoe

17-01-2009, 03:12 PM

I'm not so sure it has fallen out of use. Since we're speaking in terms of recent history, I am told that many monasteries on Athos will not accept converts from RC-ism who have been received into Orthodoxy by any other way than baptism; that is to say, they will not accept them as permanent residents of those respective monasteries; unless they agree to be baptized first.

I am also told that they (those same Athonite monasteries) have been known to baptize converts who have already been received by chrismation; not only reversing the order of the sacraments, but in effect confessing thereby some deficiency or lack in the sacrament of chrismation. It is a wonder that they don't "re-chrismate" the persons as well.

Knowing how the great Athonite fathers were for canonical order and rule, I cannot imagine many monasteries ruling that way on the question if there was no such canon; or at the very least, a canon which tended to leave itself open to that kind of application, conditionally; and if there was no tradition or historical precedent for it. The dispute seems to be, therefore, not so much over those precise conditions, as to whether or not such conditions have been sufficiently met, to warrant that application.

Oh there are specific canons on the reception of people coming from heretical groups all right. This group required a full baptism. That group required chrismation. This other group could be received by confession of Faith. Certain Orthodox simply only see the part about this group and forget about the parts pertaining to that group and this other group. Or they simply argue that the circumstances today better fit the first group than the others. They may even be right, but to baptize someone AFTER they have been received by whatever method does not foster good order and discipline within the Church and leads to disorder and schism.

Here is another question I would like to throw out there, for you all: Is it possible for a convert being received into Orthodoxy in 2009, to be baptized in one rite and chrismated into a different rite? In other words, seperate the two sacraments, so that they are performed on two different dates, in two different rites?

Anything is possible, I suppose! Are you possibly asking if a person could receive the rite of Baptism on one day and be chrismated on another day? Only under very extenuating circumstances. One case would be where a baby is in danger of dying and is baptized in the hospital by a layperson. If the child survives, a chrismation would still be performed by a priest at a later date. Is that what you are asking?

And yet there is still conditional provision(s) made for a possible future ordination, despite that impediment: "unless on account of his subsequent [display of] zeal and faith, and because of a lack of men," it says; which seems to imply that a future ordination is not totally out of the question, if those particular conditions are sufficiently met. I am eager to see the canon in question, nonetheless.

Indeed, many canons are like that. There are often exceptions. Sometimes canons from one council contradict canons from another. They were written to apply to specific situations and were not meant to be applied universally. The bishops are to use the canons that edify in a particular situation, and disregard those that don't. It requires judgement, discernment, and wisdom, not mere jurisprudence, otherwise we would call them lawyers. The Church is a hospital, not a court.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

17-01-2009, 03:26 PM

Vasiliki wrote:

In the bible there is a distinction between Baptism of water and Baptism of the spirit. How where the early Christians baptised, when was chrismation introduced and formalised?

Baptism is Trinitarian though- not just "of the spirit"- and in water. Christmation appears early in the Church's history. But only after the appearance of Baptism. Baptism is so ancient it appears in the Gospels and Epistles and probably arose as a standard entry into the Church with its very the beginning.

I just notice it is a general theme in Orthodox discussions for someone (I am guilty of this) to say ... Elder so and so or Saint such and such did THIS on this matter and therefore it IS SO! It is almost as if this is an OK practice for us to do this and I wonder is this infact acceptable in such discussions? I was hoping for some pastoral assistance? I am confused ...when we are talking about baptism and chrismation and one person says, such and such did it THIS way ...and then the next person says, so and so did it THAT way ... then friction starts to emerge ... and it doesnt seem to link back to a common thread of what is Orthodox! :) Forgive me for my uneducated rambling ..

This I would say is something for all of us to keep in mind. There is nothing wrong with pointing to Elders for precedent and as witnesses of the Church's tradition. But discussions degenerate if what we are really doing is drawing on greater 'firepower' to support our point of view.

It's better to just say what we think from the general Patristic/monastic witness of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Herman Blaydoe

17-01-2009, 04:26 PM

It is certainly a good thing to be aware of what a specific saint may have taught to a specific person in a specific situation, particularly if we find ourselves in a similar situation. But not everything that a saint has written is applicable to every person in every situation. What a saint recommended to one person in their specific situation may prove disastrous to another person in differing circumstances, just as trying to follow the advice of a coach to a professional athlete might physically harm a weekend warrior. Very few things are "one size fits all", and often require some tailoring. Your mileage may vary.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the "caveats apply" Pooh

Father David Moser

17-01-2009, 04:44 PM

But not everything that a saint has written is applicable to every person in every situation.

This brings to mind the saying of Elder Macarii of Optina in a letter to one of his spiritual children:

What I write to you, I write for you alone, and I must ask you to refrain from passing any of it on to to others as a general rule of conduct for all. It is nothing of the kind. My advice to you is fashioned according to your inner and outer circumstances. Hence, it can be right only for you.

Fr David Moser

Matthew Panchisin

17-01-2009, 08:55 PM

I am confused ...when we are talking about baptism and chrismation and one person says, such and such did it THIS way ...and then the next person says, so and so did it THAT way ... then friction starts to emerge ... and it doesn't seem to link back to a common thread of what is Orthodox! :) Forgive me for my uneducated rambling ..

Dear Vasiliki,

I hope you had a blessed name day recently. My Father is an Orthodox Priest reposed for some years now, his name was translated as Basil. As such I was thinking about what he might say or a common thread of what is Orthodox. There is a common thread woven within the vestments of the Orthodox Clergy, I have never met any that are not merciful, to the glory of God, blessed are the merciful comes to my mind. So no matter how one is recieved we know it is a merciful action of God, because God is.

I recall at my Fathers funeral service the bishop pouring Holy oil in the sign of the cross over the vestment or linen covering his face. During the Divine Liturgy during the time of the Great Entrance as the Priest brings the gifts to the Altar I often hear our Priest in Church saying to his brother Priests "May the Lord God remember your Holy Priesthood in His kingdom."

I know my Father's Priesthood was often a cross, so to speak, those that are received into Holy Orthodoxy from other traditions have crosses as well. If all of us look at things from the perspective of the lenses of those crosses, as much as possible, we might see frames fashioned with a Methodist type of cross, an RC type of cross and so on. Does anyone doubt that they are crosses particularly as they are being received into the Church.

Owen recently mentioned methodology in another thread. I think that if things are looked at too technically in terms of what is the correct way of reception into the Church Christians can end up being victimized to some extent.

Christ said, Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

I think what is Orthodox is you have been blessed to be in the Church, there is no question about it. No matter what anybody might or might not say anyone recieved into the Church via Chrismation can respond with the blessing of thier Bishop or Priest to the Priest saying, "In the fear of God with faith and love come forward."

Some of the words used for Holy Chrism in the past and present are "mystical Chrism," "Chrism of thanksgiving," "Chrism from heavens," "myrrh," "divine myrrh," "mystical myrrh," "great myrrh," and "holy and great myrrh."†

If my memory serves me correctly, the Patriarch's can only bless the Holy Chrismation oil, has anybody read the prayers that are prayed therein, perhaps it would be a good read. Surely the prayers must be sweet for it is sweet to be in the Orthodox Church. I think any fruit over what is Orthodox regarding reception into the Church is not supposed to be a debate of over those receptions but rather a "Chrism of thanksgiving" for all Orthodox Christians. Thanks be to God for your entrance into the Church, thanks be to God for your wise Bishop and Priest, thanks to God for His economia who loves mankind. We can all choose to go that way, to the glory of God. We hear in the Liturgy much glory and thanksgiving being rightly given to God, we hear "Wisdom let us attend." There is nothing greater or sweeter than thankgiving, the Eucharistic life within the Great Church of Christ. How many times to we hear in Holy Writ, Rejoice! or in the services in the Church, Rejoice Theotokas! as so forth.

Importantly, when the Churches receive the Holy Chrism from their Patriarchates it is said to be "a tangible and visible sign of the amity and bond of local churches. There is a communion of love, Holy Chrism is prepared with oil and fragrant essences, "Great Myrrh."

Friction has another source to not be attentive to, we can all just give thanks to God for the Holy Chrism oil, I think in short that is something like my Father would say.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

James Blackstock

17-01-2009, 09:34 PM

Matthew Panchisin

17-01-2009, 09:44 PM

I think all dogmatic theology according to the Orthodox tradition is seen as salvific.

Is it not written, "Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full."

Talkabout orders, thanks be to God! Obedience to the canons is not self actuating and actualized? This would depend on how they are read, in what light?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Father David Moser

17-01-2009, 11:15 PM

You are correct Father, modern bishops seem to operate by "Executive Order" without regard to the canons still on the books. At least we still have dogma!

As a pastor who is also close to his bishop and sees the turmoil that he goes through as our archpastor working not only for his own salvation but for the salvation of his whole flock, I am deeply disturbed by this sentiment of judgment upon the actions of any bishops, modern or otherwise. They require our prayer and unstinting support, even when we do not understand their actions and even when we are rebuked or rebuffed by them. They have the grace of the episcopacy, yes, but they also bear an equally great burden for the souls of their spiritual children. I struggle to pray for and minister to my own little flock - the flock of my bishop is enormous compared to my own and yet, by God's grace he cares for each one of us. He knows not only his clergy and their families, but he knows many of the regular people in the parish and cares for them as his own brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. God help our hierarchs, our beloved Vladiki and help us to ease their burden (or at least not add to it unnecessarily).

Fr David Moser

Hieromonk Ambrose

18-01-2009, 01:24 AM

Chrismation is indeed very likely since he was received in 1962, long before some sections of ROCA had conceived the desire to baptize all converts. That began in the 1970s, about 10 years *after* Fr Seraphim's reception. At the time of his reception ROCA was adhering to the three different modes of reception given in the Hapgood Service Book and which are simply the centuries old practice of the Russian Church. It is actually quite *unlikely* that Fr Seraphim was baptized at reception.I have had two replies to this question...

____________________

"As far as I know, from all the second and and third hand official and unofficial sources available to me, Father Seraphim was received by Bishop St. John through Chrismation.

M"
_____________________

"... he was chrismated. If I remember it right, it was told in his biography by priestmonk Damascene (Christensen).

N"

Vasiliki D.

19-01-2009, 11:39 PM

As a pastor who is also close to his bishop and sees the turmoil that he goes through as our archpastor working not only for his own salvation but for the salvation of his whole flock, I am deeply disturbed by this sentiment of judgment upon the actions of any bishops, modern or otherwise. They require our prayer and unstinting support, even when we do not understand their actions and even when we are rebuked or rebuffed by them. They have the grace of the episcopacy, yes, but they also bear an equally great burden for the souls of their spiritual children. I struggle to pray for and minister to my own little flock - the flock of my bishop is enormous compared to my own and yet, by God's grace he cares for each one of us. He knows not only his clergy and their families, but he knows many of the regular people in the parish and cares for them as his own brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. God help our hierarchs, our beloved Vladiki and help us to ease their burden (or at least not add to it unnecessarily).

Fr David Moser

I am of the opinion that Bishops HAVE the power to make decisions, rightly or wrongly, as is Christs promise in the New testament. He leaves the Apostles behind to rule over His church and they have his laying of hands and his blessing that what they BIND on earth is BOUND in heaven rightly or wrongly.

That clearly says to me that should a Bishop make a decision for his people (not a DOGMA based decision of course) even it is the wrong decision it wont be wrong because God will honour the decision made. The accountability for this decision is then a matter separate and between the Bishop and God in the act of confession ... hence, why I agree with Father David - we LAY PEOPLE do not have the right to judge the actions of any Bishop - even if we THINK they are doing something wrong ... only God judges them. We have a responsibility to act in obedience to those who are higher in authority to us ...

Andreas Moran

20-01-2009, 05:24 AM

There must be some qualification to obedience to a bishop. Some made plainly wrong decisions (Council of Florence, introducing the New Calendar).

Vasiliki D.

20-01-2009, 05:31 AM

There must be some qualification to obedience to a bishop. Some made plainly wrong decisions (Council of Florence, introducing the New Calendar).

Perhaps then, we pray for the "Wound" in the church discussed in Revelation ... perhaps God has already acknowledged this damage to his Body (the Church) by even letting us know He knows of the issue but to him it is irrelevant ...

We continue to observe obedience - not all are Apostles ... some of us are merely ... not in positions of authority because God clearly does not want us to get involved ... except we meet in prayer.

Andreas Moran

20-01-2009, 06:12 AM

One thinks of the life-long struggle of Elder Philotheos Zervakos with the Church of Greece over the calendar issue, and the similar anguish of Photios Kontoglou.

Vasiliki D.

20-01-2009, 07:54 AM

One thinks of the life-long struggle of Elder Philotheos Zervakos with the Church of Greece over the calendar issue, and the similar anguish of Photios Kontoglou.

Elder Philotheos Zervakos is extremally mis-represented by the Old Calendarists in Greece as one of their own ... this is not entirely appropriate ... their are many Elders who wanted the Old Calendar but were obedient to the decisions of the Synod and remained with the New Calendar.

Obedience to the main stream church is more important than our own opinion - even if our opinion is correct.

Andreas Moran

20-01-2009, 09:57 AM

What I know about Elder Philotheos is from Constantine Cavarnos.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-01-2009, 02:50 PM

Let's please keep the discussion to the topic of this thread- Baptism of those from non-Orthodox churches.

Many thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Kusanagi

20-01-2009, 06:48 PM

Herman Blaydoe

20-01-2009, 08:16 PM

From the Apostolic Canons

Canon XLVI.

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

That's why on Athos I believe they do rebaptise, along with the Oriental Churches

That is why we don't "admit" them, we correct or perfect them. But even this canon was ameliorated later, such as the 7th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constatinople 381) which specified how members baptized in certain heretical groups were to be admitted into the Church; some by baptism, others by chrismation, and still others by simple statement of Faith.

In the very next canon of the Apostolic Council - XLVII: Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again (i.e. re-baptize {emphasis mine}) one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.

To "baptize again" or "rebaptize" is clearly against the canon, not to mention the Creed: "I believe in one baptism..." And the fact of the matter is that to "baptize" someone who has already been received into the Orthodox Church by competant authority is, in fact, guilty of violating Canon XLVII of the same council he claims to be upholding. They are, in effect, saying that a properly recognized bishop of the Holy Orthodox Church is in concord with Belial and an infidel, starting with everyone who accepted the Second Ecumenical Council? Some inconsistency seems evident to this bear of admittedly little brain, and some rethinking of that position might be appropriate.

Herman the Pooh

Vasiliki D.

20-01-2009, 10:47 PM

One of my all time favourites is the Shepard of Hermas. I love it for its brilliant simplicity and yet complexity, that it is from the second century and that it was also considered canonical scripture by some of the early church fathers, including Irenaeus – who I hold in high regard. That is enough for me to consider it as important and I include it as part of my spiritual growth.

For those who might not have read this book, it consists of five visions granted to Hermas (who many believe is one of the Seventy), a former slave and simple Shepard. These visions are complimented with twelve “commandments” and parables and is highly allegorical in its structure …

The longest vision (Similitude 9) is an elaboration on the building of the “tower”, which represents the Church, and that each stone of this tower are the faithful. In an earlier vision it alludes that only the holy are part of the Church and in this Similitude (9) it clearly points out that only the baptised are included.

Here is a link to an English translation for those who are interested to read it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080116134620/http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html

I think it is a great piece of work to consider alongside this discussion. Though it does not specifically address the exact issue of this thread it does provide some insight into the distinctions between the outcomes of different “types” of Christians – baptised or not baptised.

Josh Sundheim

02-02-2009, 09:43 PM

Father David Moser

02-02-2009, 10:42 PM

Forgive the simplicity of the following questions, for I am no theologian.

1. Do those who are against receiving converts via chrismation only regard those converts as not fully Orthodox? I can't seem to find any statements to that effect, even among the posts by those who prefer (re)baptism+chrismation.

As a priest who advocates the reception of all converts by baptism and chrismation (there is no fear of "re-baptism" here since sacraments only exist within the Church and therefore no rite resembling baptism in other religions and or Christian confessions can be considered a sacramental "baptism" in Orthodoxy) I will say that since reception by Chrismation for someone who has in the past received an outward form of trinitarian baptism is permitted by the Church, then there is no question that a person received in such a manner is no less Orthodox than the rest of us. It is the Church's prerogative to receive converts in this manner when the pastoral situation indicates and the Bishop has given a blessing so there is no difficulty here. You are fully completely and without exception or question Orthodox, having been received into the Church in a manner which is in harmony with the traditional practice of the Church.

2. Do I need to worry that I'm in some sort of spiritual limbo because I was not baptized in an Orthodox church before chrismation? I realize that the monks on Mt Athos have (re)baptized converts even after chrismation & communion, but are there any jurisdictions in the USA that would deny communion to a convert like me? More simply put, does a jurisdiction like the JP recognize those persons as Orthodox even if they didn't necessarily follow their prescribed method for reception into the Church?

The only Orthodox groups in the US who would insist on a retroactive or corrective baptism are schismatic groups who have separated themselves from the rest of the Church.

3. Are there any converts out there who have sought out and received (re)baptism after chrismation?

I have given a "retroactive" baptism in only one case and that was when the existence of an original baptism (which was assumed in the prior situation) was in question. Even then a conditional baptismal formula was used as it was an extremely irregular situation.

4. Is the debate more so about the over-use and possibly abuse of baptismal oikonomia by the clergy than it is about whether the chrismations in absence of an Orthodox baptism constitute authentic conversions and receptions into the Church?

I think you are safe in this assumption.

Fr David Moser

Josh Sundheim

02-02-2009, 11:15 PM

Thank you, Fr. David, for your reply. You have certainly put my mind and spirit at ease. I try not to get too worked up when I read threads like this but it hit close to home and got me a little worried that maybe I did something wrong. I regret not choosing baptism but it's a regret that I will have to live with, or rather, one that I will pray that Christ and His Most Pure Mother will ease from my heart. Or maybe instead of worrying about myself I'll just rejoice in the fact that my wife and son were blessed enough to have been baptized into Christ's Church.

Robert Hegwood

02-02-2009, 11:45 PM

Insofar as I understand such things we are also given what some have called a second baptism...or a renewal of our baptism. To find this should more than clear any lingering doubts or deficiencies of protocol. Not that it is an easy gift to be able to recieve. This is the gift of tears which spring from our spiritual mourning and repentance. These I have read refresh and renew the inner man not unlike what Baptism works for us.

Andreas Moran

03-02-2009, 11:11 AM

There was a time when I felt rather as Josh Sundheim says he felt. I was baptised in the Church of England when it was still very traditional. I was received into the Orthodox Church through Chrismation by a venerable bishop of the Ecumenical throne. I do not doubt that I am as Orthodox as anyone else, but like Fr David and Josh, I do believe that reception by baptism and chrismation ought to be the norm.

Hieromonk Ambrose

03-02-2009, 11:49 AM

I do believe that reception by baptism and chrismation ought to be the norm.

Dear Andreas,

For those of us in the Russian tradition the baptism of such as Roman Catholics and Lutherans is an aberration. It is not the historical practice of the Russian Church.

Except for a brief 35 year period Roman Catholics have not been baptized by our holy Russian Church but received by either confession of faith or chrismation.

There was only a very brief period when Catholics were received by Baptism. At the Council of Moscow in 1620, it was decreed to accept Roman Catholics by Baptism. This was something the Russians had not done previously but it was introduced in reaction to the Unia and its corrosive effects on the Russian lands.

However, 35 years later this was acknowledged to be an error by a succeeding Council of Moscow in 1655 and the 1655 Council once again forbade the baptism of Catholics. The prohibition against baptizing Roman Catholics remains the position of the Russian Church even to this day.

Thus it was for a mere 35 years of its history that the Russian Church baptized Roman Catholics.

References, etc.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm

Over time the Russian Church Abroad, now united with Moscow, will be expected to come into line with Russian practice. Its odd and ahistorical practice of baptizing all comers commenced a mere 30 years ago, mainly in the States. I expect the time will soon come when the Church Abroad will need to terminate this ahistorical practice and conform to the existing Russian canons.

Some ROCA dioceses and bishops never adopted the practice of baptizing all converts - my own Australian Diocese for example, which prefers to follow the threefold manner of reception of converts which is found in the Hapgood Service Book. What is found in Hapgood is the age-old practice of the Russian Church.

Fr Ambrose

-oOo-

Andreas Moran

03-02-2009, 02:57 PM

I haven't had time yet to read the article to which there is a link but it must be borne in mind that western Churches (RC, Anglican, Methodist) do not perform baptism by immersion. The BCP provides for immersion but that provision is not followed. The question therefore is, how important is the act of immersion (as opposed to a light aspersion) and on what grounds is it said that immersion, or the lack of it, can be overlooked? My first late wife was baptised, though she had been christened a Methodist, and then chrismated, and having seen that I would recommend any prospective convert to Orthodoxy to choose to be baptised.

Hieromonk Ambrose

03-02-2009, 03:18 PM

I would recommend any prospective convert to Orthodoxy to choose to be baptised.

It devolves into an act of obedience to the instructions of his bishop on the part of the receiving priest.

However, if a convert's personal desires and spiritual needs are contrary to the general instructions issued by the bishop then a case needs to be presented to him for an exception.

For most of my "working" life I have been a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church and under the bishop's instructions I baptized *everyone*, including two Catholic priests and one nun. Only once did I need to ask the bishop to forego a Baptism and permit only a Chrismation, in the case of an Anglican minister who would probably have found it very difficult to enter the Church if we had insisted on Baptism.

Since moving into the Russian Church Abroad the situation has been reversed and I was instructed to cease baptizing Catholics and to follow the traditional Russian ways given in the Hapgood Service Book. So, since becoming a priest of the Russian Church Abroad I have never baptized a Catholic. If a Catholic did desire Baptism I would refer his or her request to our diocesan authorities.

Andreas Moran

03-02-2009, 05:10 PM

It devolves into an act of obedience to the instructions of his bishop on the part of the receiving priest.

In my case, I was received by a bishop who left the choice to me. If a person is given a choice he needs to be able to exercise that choice in an informed and meaningful way.

D. W. Dickens

03-02-2009, 11:28 PM

Daniel Harrison

04-02-2009, 10:04 PM

I myself was "baptized" in a non-denominational protestant church in a Trinitarian fashion. Then I left that church and was "christmated" in the byzantine catholic church, after about a year I met Father Averky here on monachos.net by the blessing of the Lord, I converted to Holy Orthodoxy and I was
Baptized in the Orthodox Church in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

No other "church" other than the Orthodox Church, the True Church of Christ has Sacramental Grace why should we except Schismatic and Heretical Sacaraments when they are Graceless?

In Christ
Nektarios

D. W. Dickens

05-02-2009, 12:03 AM

We are all graceless until the Holy Spirit condescends on us. The Church's Sacraments don't stand apart (self-sustain), but are continually filled from/with the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Church (the Bishops in the matter of baptism, but all of us to some extent or another) has the joy of dispensing the grace given to it. A Bishop can fill from that deep well that which is lacking in all things, including baptisms. He chooses to do that or not to do that purely for pastoral reasons.

They do not deviate because it is unwise to do so. Bishops follow the example of the Church both in time and space to inform their pastoral work for the salvation of their flock.

I have heard some say, we follow the Ecumenical councils. But I have heard, I think more appropriately, the Ecumenical councils follow us. They are what they are because the Church says they are. Just like the Scriptures.

This was hard to learn coming from a very individualistic protestant background. It can be scary in light of some groups (Anglicans or post-modern protestants) who say "we can be whatever we want", but then those groups fail to give their ancestors a vote (hat tip GK Chesterton). Their *WE* is too narrow. :-)

Hieromonk Ambrose

13-02-2009, 11:46 PM

then those groups fail to give their ancestors a vote (hat tip GK Chesterton). Their *WE* is too narrow. :-)

A favourite quote of mine...

"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."

And he goes on: " All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."

Orthodoxy, Chapter 4, "The Ethics of Elfland."

Rick H.

14-02-2009, 12:19 AM

Here's a favorite quote of mine:

Theology in the first-person, i.e. the theology experienced by the theologian, is the living engagement with, and union in, God himself. This is an old axiom of Orthodox Christianity—old because it is so foundational.

John W.

16-02-2009, 05:59 PM

"Theology that is taught as a [worldly] science usually examines things historically and consequently understands things externally. Because patristic asceticism and inner experience are absent, this theology is full of doubts and questions. With his mind, man is not able to comprehend the divine energies unless he first struggles ascetically to live these energies, so that the grace of God might work within him."

- Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain

John W.

17-02-2009, 05:52 AM

I had a strange dilemma when I came to Orthodoxy. Two parishes were nearby, one Greek, one OCA. I was told by members of the Greek parish that I would not have to be baptized "again" because I had Trinitarian baptism from my protestant upbringing. However, I would have to get "re-married".

At the OCA parish, I didn't have to get remarried...

Like you, we were not married after our reception into the OCA. Many years later, I happened upon the homepage of one of the local Greek Orthodox parishes and to my dismay I learned that according to the Greek Orthodox, I was not an Orthodox Christian in good standing (and therefore ineligible to receive the Mysteries in the G.O. Church) since I was never married in the Church. This was not just the custom of the parish, but a uniform policy (though not uniformly enforced) in the Greek Orthodox churches.

I asked my priest how the OCA viewed my marriage. He said that the OCA "recognizes" our marriage. I followed up with, "Does that mean that the OCA views my marriage as the same as an Orthodox couple who was married in the Church." The priest answered, "The OCA recognizes that you are married." I told him that the statement did not answer my question and posed it again. Looonnnng silence. No answer. So I said, "Father, correct me if I am wrong, but basically if we weren't married in the Church, we are not married in the Church, right?" Priest, "Yes." Me: "Then I want to be married in the Church ASAP."

The Priest told me that the OCA "encourages" but does not require converts to marry in the Church.

D.W. (fogive my boldness) my advice to you is to get married in the Church. It's the Pan-Orthodox thing to do. Unless you plan on limiting yourself to moving within the circle of the OCA, then it is meet and right to be in "good standing" with all of our Orthodox brethren.

On a personal note, getting married in the Church is a blessing. The service itself is so much like a Baptism. The mysteriological union is real and something way beyond "renewing your vows" or "getting your marriage blessed." When we were little "m" married in our former evangelical Protestant church, we took the basic " 'til death do us part" vows. Being joined together for eternity in an Orthodox Christian marriage is entirely different deal! I had to work up the courage (though we had been together in our little "m" marriage for over 16 years) to propose again and I sweated as I waited for her answer.

Get Married in the Church. There is a difference. There is a change. Don't deprive yourself of this blessing from the Church!

Michael Stickles

17-02-2009, 07:15 AM

I asked my priest how the OCA viewed my marriage. He said that the OCA "recognizes" our marriage. I followed up with, "Does that mean that the OCA views my marriage as the same as an Orthodox couple who was married in the Church." The priest answered, "The OCA recognizes that you are married." I told him that the statement did not answer my question and posed it again. Looonnnng silence. No answer. So I said, "Father, correct me if I am wrong, but basically if we weren't married in the Church, we are not married in the Church, right?" Priest, "Yes." Me: "Then I want to be married in the Church ASAP."

The Priest told me that the OCA "encourages" but does not require converts to marry in the Church.

Interesting. I asked my priest (also OCA) essentially the same question, and his reply was that for a married couple coming into the Church, their marriage is blessed and sanctified by their respective baptisms/chrismations, and so they're just as married as an Orthodox couple who married in the Church. He said nothing about converts being "encouraged" to marry in the Church. For that matter, before asking him, I had looked through the OCA website for info on the status of pre-conversion marriages, and I didn't see anything like that there, either.

My wife and I have not been limited to just OCA circles by not having a "(re)marriage" done in the Church; we've received blessings to partake of the Eucharist at Greek and Serbian parishes as well as other OCA parishes.

In Christ,
Michael

D. W. Dickens

17-02-2009, 07:27 AM

Hrm. That's a bit different than I was told. I was told that Russians in general view marriage as a sacrament established prior to the Church and that they view all persons married as married even outside the Church. But I don't have any particular hang up on how the Church bestows his blessing. This reminds me of the Jewish approach to the Law of Noah.

I'm not sure I would even think to tell a GOA priest that my marriage wasn't "real" if I "called ahead" to ask if I could receive the mysteries. I'd certainly hate to cause a controversy.

As for whether or not we would get married in the Church, yes, the plan is to remarry (or renew our vows or chrism them or whatever you want to call it). We entered the Church only a couple of months ago, but it would nice to be able to do something like this on or near our anniversary. The only difficulty will be giving my wife a means of dealing with the experience. While she wants to do it, but she's paralyzed by crowds and can usually barely handle a Church service. By November though, it might work out.

I'm generally of the Elisha "double portion of spirit" or Peter "wash my hands also" sort of thinking coming to the Church. When my priest asked me what I was prepared to do for my first real lent I simply said, "whatever the Church does."

Andreas Moran

17-02-2009, 11:21 AM

Get Married in the Church. There is a difference. There is a change. Don't deprive yourself of this blessing from the Church!

I agree. A convert couple who have been married in some Church are not on the same level as a couple who have never married or only had a civil marriage, but such a convert couple are really only married in the eyes of the Orthodox Church if they have an Orthodox marriage, as my first wife and I did in Cyprus shortly after her baptism there. We were urged to do so by our spiritual father and by Bishop Eirenaios. It does make a difference: the couple feel a sense of sacramental completeness.

Herman Blaydoe

17-02-2009, 02:43 PM

Well, married is married, regardless, but asking God to BLESS the marriage seems something we ought to encourage. While they may not call it a wedding or marriage ceremony, per se, many parishes I have been associated with perform a shortened and simplified marriage "blessing" for those joining the Church who are already married. I might understand where it might be pastorally ill advised to force someone to have their marriage blessed, but if they want it done, I've yet to meet the priest who would refuse them, even if I have heard that some bishops discourage the practice. That is certainly not the case in my little diocese. I can also see where a full marriage ceremony might not be encouraged, but it seems to this bear of little brain that asking God's blessing over any major life decision, even after the fact, seems a good idea.

Herman the Pooh

Andreas Moran

17-02-2009, 03:33 PM

Well, married is married, regardless

I don't see how this can be so. Marriage is a sacrament of the Orthodox Church. Can we say, 'holy communion is holy communion, regardless', or 'chrismation is chrismation, regardless'? No. The sacraments of the Orthodox Church are works of the Holy Spirit and unique in what they bestow. Any other marriage cannot be equated with the Orthodox sacrament of marriage.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

17-02-2009, 03:55 PM

I think though that one of the strengths of Monachos is that it allows us to more clearly see what the points are which are the basis for disagreement.

Thus for this question the first point is about sacramental reality outside of the Church; I'm not sure how many are really maintaining this. I don't think many do.

But the issue if this is so is whether and how the sacramental reality of the Church through reception in itself (eg baptism, chrismation) then makes complete what was lacking before.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andreas Moran

17-02-2009, 04:31 PM

Herman Blaydoe

17-02-2009, 04:32 PM

I don't see how this can be so. Marriage is a sacrament of the Orthodox Church. Can we say, 'holy communion is holy communion, regardless', or 'chrismation is chrismation, regardless'? No. The sacraments of the Orthodox Church are works of the Holy Spirit and unique in what they bestow. Any other marriage cannot be equated with the Orthodox sacrament of marriage.

Whatever. Civil marriage is a binding contract and in that respect "married is married". As I understand it, early on, there was both a civil and a Church ceremony until such time as Christianity became the "law" of the Empire and the marriage ceremony was legally recognized as sufficing for the civil contract.

In a sense we are not arguing, because a contract is a contract and a sacrament is a sacrament. Yes, in total agreement, they are not really the same thing, even if they have been combined by civil statute. However, I have heard the reasoning that the prior marriage of two people coming into the Church is sanctified as part of Chrismation and a marriage ceremony is therefore unnecessary by competant Orthodox authority. I am not trying to contramand that authority, I am only trying to say that, even if it is not "necessary", it is still a good idea, but I don't wear the funny hat, nor do you AFAIK. (then again, whatever you might do in private is your own affair and I know I like to wear hats but I digress and we really don't need to go there...)

Herman the hat-wearing (but not mitre-wearing) Pooh

D. W. Dickens

17-02-2009, 04:34 PM

Thus for this question the first point is about sacramental reality outside of the Church; I'm not sure how many are really maintaining this. I don't think many do.

But the issue if this is so is whether and how the sacramental reality of the Church through reception in itself (eg baptism, chrismation) then makes complete what was lacking before.

I don't believe anything is was lacking my marriage any more than anything was lacking in Joachim and Anna's marriage which existed completely outside the Church but is often considered a model of a loving couple by those I have met since becoming Orthodox.

I've said before, I don't believe in magic. The Church enables my marriage to be salvific, but the marriage preexisted my entrance to the Church. I am not unmarried, my children born of fornication.

Herman Blaydoe

17-02-2009, 04:44 PM

Is it possible to argue that reception of a couple by either baptism or chrismation can confer upon them the fulness of the Orthodox sacrament of marriage if they were married in a Protestant church? Isn't this an 'economy too far'? All convert couples I've known in England were advised (by, amongst others, Bishop Kallistos as he was at the relevant time) that they should have an Orthodox marriage. What if the couple had had a civil marriage and became Orthodox? What of the couple who had a Protestant church wedding and one of them converts to Orthodoxy?

Well, we run into the danger of becoming legalistic I think. Are children born to a marriage outside the Church "out of wedlock" and therefore illegitimate? If one spouse converts and the other doesn't and doesn't consent to an Orthodox marriage blessing, is the Orthodox spouse free to marry another, or obligated to no longer cohabitate with his or her current spouse? Of course not, they are MARRIED! The believing spouse justifies the unbelieving spouse, if we are allowed to belief Holy Scripture. Therefore, even Holy Scripture seems to indicate that "married is married" even if it is outside the Church.

Is it an economia too far? Well when you become bishop, that will be your call to make I guess. Until then we look to the funny-hat wearing guys to make the call. Before we get into semantic pugelism, yes I agree that marriage within the Church ought to be preferred, receiving a blessing out not to be neglected.

But all the same, married is married and how to pastorally handle each case-by-case is not our call, and I suspect that, like many things, it won't be one-size-fits-all.

Herman the "off-the-rack" Pooh

Andreas Moran

17-02-2009, 04:45 PM

a contract is a contract and a sacrament is a sacrament. Yes, in total agreement, they are not really the same thing

It would be startling if indeed a civil contract were to have the efficacy of a sacrament of the Orthodox Church!
Since this forum is for the discussion of Orthodoxy from monastic, patristic and liturgical sources, from what source comes the proposition that chrismation of a couple is effective to confer upon their wedding in a heterodox church the fulness of the Orthodox sacramant of marriage? It would not be enough to say that a bishop said so - his 'say so' would have to be based on some authority.

Andreas Moran

17-02-2009, 05:02 PM

Just to be clear, I would not say, obviously, that where a couple who had had a non-Orthodox church wedding and then either or both converted to Orthodoxy they, or the one who had converted, were in any sense not in good order with the Church. During the five years I was Orthodox and my first wife was not, it was not suggested that I could not participate fully in the Church. Indeed, I was tonsured as a Reader by Bishop Eirenaios before my wife became Orthodox, though she did have every intention of being baptised as eventually she was. But I feel sure that a full Orthodox marriage does add something. And why not do it?

In answer to some of Herman's comments, I think we can properly discuss our ideas here without being bishops!

Herman Blaydoe

17-02-2009, 05:04 PM

It would be startling if indeed a civil contract were to have the efficacy of a sacrament of the Orthodox Church!
Since this forum is for the discussion of Orthodoxy from monastic, patristic and liturgical sources, from what source comes the proposition that chrismation of a couple is effective to confer upon their wedding in a heterodox church the fulness of the Orthodox sacramant of marriage? It would not be enough to say that a bishop said so - his 'say so' would have to be based on some authority.

If Holy Scripture recognizes the joining of a man and woman outside the Church, why wouldn't the Church? The believing SPOUSE justifies the unbelieving spouse, remember? And the Holy Apostle Paul says it is OK for the believing spouse NOT to leave the unbelieving spouse because they are MARRIED.

The "authority" is from the Church as a "body" as long as it is not contramanded by his brother bishops. In some things the Apostles felt it perfectly fine to speak from their own authority as long as it did not depart from the consensus of the Church as a whole.

Herman the Pooh

Ryan

17-02-2009, 05:44 PM

If Holy Scripture recognizes the joining of a man and woman outside the Church, why wouldn't the Church? The believing SPOUSE justifies the unbelieving spouse, remember?

If all marriage is recognized, even pagan marriages, where is the line drawn between marriage and co-habitation? I'm not asking this rhetorically... I am thinking particularly of what happens when a couple has been living together, and then one of them converts to Orthodoxy.

Andreas Moran

17-02-2009, 05:53 PM

Conversely, as I understand it, if an Orthodox Christian enters into cohabitation or only a civil marriage, that person is not in good order with the Church and may not receive communion.

Herman Blaydoe

17-02-2009, 06:06 PM

If all marriage is recognized, even pagan marriages, where is the line drawn between marriage and co-habitation? I'm not asking this rhetorically... I am thinking particularly of what happens when a couple has been living together, and then one of them converts to Orthodoxy.

That is when the bishop gets to make the call. I suspect it might depend on the circumstances and nature of the relationship, so different bishops might make different calls, or the same bishop might rule differently in different cases. They draw the line where discernment deems appropriate. If there is nothing legally binding, then perhaps this person should leave their partner. But mayhaps in another situation, leaving is impractical and seriously detrimental spiritually (for whatever reason). Should that person be denied communion because their partner refuses to marry? I honestly don't know, I'm just glad that I don't have to make that call. I just know that if the bishop allows that person to commune, I am not going to get in their face about it, whether I agree with it or not, especially since there may be more to the situation than I am aware of. He has to answer to God about it, not me.

Herman the glad-he's-not-a-bishop Pooh

Michael Stickles

17-02-2009, 06:18 PM

Since this forum is for the discussion of Orthodoxy from monastic, patristic and liturgical sources, from what source comes the proposition that chrismation of a couple is effective to confer upon their wedding in a heterodox church the fulness of the Orthodox sacramant of marriage? It would not be enough to say that a bishop said so - his 'say so' would have to be based on some authority.

We can ask the question the other way around - from what source comes the proposition that marriage entered into before entry into the church is not sanctified by the baptism/chrismation of the spouses, and thus is left in a lesser or degraded state as compared to a sacramental union between two who are already Orthodox before their marriage?

I've looked through a lot of writings of the Fathers when researching this myself (out of concern for how the Church viewed my marriage), and the only difference I could find in how a pre-conversion marriage (where both spouses convert) is viewed as compared to a post-conversion marriage, is that the former does not count towards the restriction that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife". And this is not explained as meaning that the pre-conversion marriage is of a "lesser status", but rather that if all other violations of the requirements given are ignored if they occur before baptism, then the "one wife" restriction must be treated likewise.

Maybe there is "something more" added to a marriage if the couple, after converting, have a full Orthodox marriage, or a marriage blessing. But my suspicion (i.e. my partly formed opinion) is that it has more to do with the effect on the mind and heart of the couple, than with any change in the sacramental state of the union. Not that there's anything wrong with that - my wife and I have been considering asking for a Church marriage, or marriage blessing, ourselves, as a way to embody our desire to have our marriage and family life fully enclosed within the life of the Church.

In Christ,
Michael

Andreas Moran

18-02-2009, 12:16 AM

a way to embody our desire to have our marriage and family life fully enclosed within the life of the Church - [my emphasis]

I think this says a lot.

I hope it isn't being too legalistic - and I don't think it is - to bear in mind that if a couple have had an Orthodox marriage and they divorce, they need to get an ecclesiastical divorce, but not if they did not. (I believe that's right.) This must say something about the sacramental nature of the Orthodox marriage and its spiritual reality.

But, as I have already indicated, since an Orthodox marriage is such a meaningful and joyous occasion, why avoid it?

John W.

18-02-2009, 12:33 AM

Is it possible to argue that reception of a couple by either baptism or chrismation can confer upon them the fulness of the Orthodox sacrament of marriage if they were married in a Protestant church?

When another couple congratulated us on "renewing our vows," I explained that we did not renew our "death do us part" deal, but entered into the Mystery of Marriage in the Orthodox Church. I didn't expect a defensive response on the part of the hubby who peevishly told me that the OCA priest who received them into the Church by chrismation, informed them that chrismation filled up ALL of the empty sacraments from their pre-Orthodox lives.

So yes it is possible to argue your point. It has its advocates within the OCA alongside the encouragers of the Marriage sacrament.

Herman Blaydoe

18-02-2009, 12:33 AM

I hope it isn't being too legalistic - and I don't think it is - to bear in mind that if a couple have had an Orthodox marriage and they divorce, they need to get an ecclesiastical divorce, but not if they did not. (I believe that's right.) This must say something about the sacramental nature of the Orthodox marriage and its spiritual reality.

Except that this is not universally true in all Orthodox jurisdictions. Sorry but this is not an organized religion.

But, as I have already indicated, since an Orthodox marriage is such a meaningful and joyous occasion, why avoid it?

I don't think anyone here is trying to avoid anything, merely trying to understand what they have been told. Marriage is marriage. God's blessing on a marriage is God's blessing. A marriage without God's blessing is still a marriage and is still treated as such by the Church. That is why there are consequences for someone already IN the Church getting married outside the Church, because it is a marriage without a blessing and that is something Orthodox Christians ought to know better than to do.

Be careful when you call in to question the legitimacy of someone's marriage, what are you saying about their children? Is this a nice thing to say? Words have meaning. Be mindful, that's all I'm trying to say.

Herman the Pooh

John W.

18-02-2009, 12:39 AM

- since an Orthodox marriage is such a meaningful and joyous occasion, why avoid it?

Why indeed?

A Greek priest put it even more succinctly: "Why don't you want the Church to bless your marriage?"

John W.

18-02-2009, 12:55 AM

Marriage is marriage.

Not so.

My original contract:

I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

New contract: Orthodox Marriage (Fr. Thomas Hopko, OCA):

"When a man and woman have such a love, they can find its fulfillment only in Christ. He makes it possible; no one and nothing else can do it. So, for those who love truly, the savior and accomplisher of their love is Christ. He gives every virtue and every fruit of the Spirit. He allows them to grow ever more perfectly one. He allows them to live and to love for eternity in the Kingdom of God. A marriage in Christ does not end in sin; it does not part in death. It is fulfilled and perfected in the Kingdom of heaven. It is for this reason, and this reason only, that those who seek true love and perfection in marriage come to the Church to be married in Christ."

Different deals. Different marriages.

Herman Blaydoe

18-02-2009, 01:30 AM

Not so.

snip

Different deals. Different marriages.

They are both still marriages, unless you are saying one was a marriage, the other wasn't.

Herman the semantically pugilistic Pooh

John W.

18-02-2009, 02:01 AM

They are both still marriages, unless you are saying one was a marriage, the other wasn't.

I am saying that one was a Protestant marriage with a 'Sell By' date: "Death do us Part."

I am also saying that the other one, the state in which I find myself,is an Orthodox Christian marriage:

"Orthodox theology has always presented Christian marriage as something absolutely unique, and, indeed eternal. In marriage, human love "is being projected into the Kingdom of God", reflecting the intimate union between Christ and the faithful which St. Paul speaks of (Ephes. 5). Married life is a special vocation which requires the grace of the Holy Spirit; and it is this very grace which is conferred in the Marriage Service."

Protestant vs. Orthodox. To me the differences are obvious.

Vasiliki D.

18-02-2009, 02:11 AM

I am saying that one was a Protestant marriage with a 'Sell By' date: "Death do us Part."

I am also saying that the other one, the state in which I find myself,is an Orthodox Christian marriage:

"Orthodox theology has always presented Christian marriage as something absolutely unique, and, indeed eternal. In marriage, human love "is being projected into the Kingdom of God", reflecting the intimate union between Christ and the faithful which St. Paul speaks of (Ephes. 5). Married life is a special vocation which requires the grace of the Holy Spirit; and it is this very grace which is conferred in the Marriage Service."

Protestant vs. Orthodox. To me the differences are obvious.

Hello!! :-) I agree with Herman that in the Orthodox church .. marriage is marriage. If you have married - it is a marraige regardless if it disintegrates in a worldy sence. This is because an Orthodox marriage IS a mystery and to say that the Holy Spirit hasnt blessed this service BECAUSE the marriage failed is to call God a lier ...

However, having said that ... I DO see the difference between the Protestant idea of what makes a marriage work versus the orthodox perspective of what an orthodox marriage SHOULD BE.

Unfortunately, humans are humans ... God DOES GIVE HIS HOLY SPIRIT (a marriage failure is not proof that God never gaave the Holy Spirit) what actually happels is that the HUMANS CHOOSE TO THROW IT AWAY BY CHOOSING A LIFESTYLE THAT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT A MARRIAGE SHOULD BE!

When two people separate it is because one or the other or both are guilty of pushing the Grace that God has given ...

Mary

18-02-2009, 02:38 AM

Hello!!
When two people separate it is because one or the other or both are guilty of pushing the Grace that God has given ...

So... if two people who haven't had an orthodox marriage, if they do not separate, and have remained faithful to each other in all ways, then, is that still not a true marriage? And how can any marriage, be so true, without God's grace? Is it possible for two sinful human beings, to be faithful, without God's blessing and grace?

My parents were not orthodox. Neither are any of my other family members. And yet, there has been no divorce or even a 're-marriage' after being widowed, that I know of. By family, I mean the more than dozen pairs of uncles and aunts that I have, and also the more than 3 times the number of cousins and their families.

So, what makes an Orthodox marriage more true? It has more grace? More blessing from God? It is more real? Isn't marriage, simply just marriage? Blessed by God regardless? And blessed even more, if the couple takes their union seriously and faithfully guard it?

Just wondering. No one told us we had to redo our marriage in the Church, and to be honest, I have no desire to.

Mary

Vasiliki D.

18-02-2009, 02:47 AM

So... if two people who haven't had an orthodox marriage, if they do not separate, and have remained faithful to each other in all ways, then, is that still not a true marriage? And how can any marriage, be so true, without God's grace? Is it possible for two sinful human beings, to be faithful, without God's blessing and grace?

My parents were not orthodox. Neither are any of my other family members. And yet, there has been no divorce or even a 're-marriage' after being widowed, that I know of. By family, I mean the more than dozen pairs of uncles and aunts that I have, and also the more than 3 times the number of cousins and their families.

So, what makes an Orthodox marriage more true? It has more grace? More blessing from God? It is more real? Isn't marriage, simply just marriage? Blessed by God regardless? And blessed even more, if the couple takes their union seriously and faithfully guard it?

Just wondering. No one told us we had to redo our marriage in the Church, and to be honest, I have no desire to.

Mary

If we work to the premise that the orthodox church is NOT a man made religion (which we all agree to be true) and that it IS the real body of Christ himself ...then anything outside of this is merely a man-made MIRROR ... and therein lies the answer.

Firstly, true marriage, according to the church, is NOT an agreement between two people ... it IS between THREE (like I already posted earlier) - man, woman and CHRIST.

If the TRUE God is only to be found in the Orthodox church then any marriage outside the church does not have God in it .. thereby, it is merely an agreement between two people.

So, though two people are faithful and in every way a MIRROR of sacramental marriage ... they miss the presence of the REAL LIVING GOD .. who can only be found in HIS BODY :-)

I just want to add ... this reply really is not an answer to your questions .... I dont know the answer .. I am speculating out loud.

Mary

18-02-2009, 03:06 AM

So, though two people are faithful and in every way a MIRROR of sacramental marriage ... they miss the presence of the REAL LIVING GOD .. who can only be found in HIS BODY :-)

I just want to add ... this reply really is not an answer to your questions .... I dont know the answer .. I am speculating out loud.

Oh, don't worry about answering me. Sometimes, I just like to toss out questions. My version of idle talk. So, don't get sucked into it. =)

I agree, that the presence of Christ in a non-orthodox marriage would be either totally absent, or minimal. However, marriages aren't just agreements, like a business contract, and I think, most people dont' approach marriage as a business contract, even if they're not Christian. It is a relationship. It is organic. It affects a person very deeply. It changes you. It makes you grow.

So, in the case of a couple, who've had a non-orthodox wedding, and then get baptised later on, doesn't Christ enter their lives? So, why re-do a marriage? He's already there. In full. And we're a part of the Body. In full. Unless, our orthodox baptisms and christmations were lacking in some way? In a way that can only be completed through an orthodox marriage ceremony?

I find that hard to believe. But then, of course, I'm only thinking mathematically. =)

In Christ,
mary.

Vasiliki D.

18-02-2009, 03:33 AM

I disagree and agree ... you see, although the intentions of a ''married'' couple, outside the church, are an exact mirror of what a marriage is .. there is only one thing missing (this is where I disagree) and that IS the blessing of God ... what makes marriage different to baptism?

You see, if you are not baptised into the Body of Christ you can say you are Christian all you like ... but according to the fathers of the church and Christ himself, you are not PART of the Body .. you are merely an observer of the Body ...

Baptism is ONE of SEVEN sacraments. Marriage is ONE of SEVEN sacraments - arent the sacraments mutually exclusive?

So, if I am baptised - I have observed ONE sacrament .. this does not automatically qualify me to rights to another sacrament (hence, we are back to the start again arent we?)

I dont know the Canons of the Church which means this could actually be wrong thinking on my behalf.
-----
I am going to give this one more shot .. I want to write my thoughts down to then correct them. The way I am approaching this topic is like this.

We have two marriages we are discussing - Marriage A and Marriace B; marriage A is in the church and Marriage B is outside the Church.

Marriage A ... when a couple meet to pledge before God - Christ is standing next to them and marrying alongside them ... they are marrying into a TRINITY. It IS real because it has the REAL presence of Christ in the sacrament and in the union; it is a reflection of God himself - Trinitarian and perfect.

Marriage B ... a couple meet to pledge before God - Christ is not standing next to them because this service is not a sacrament since it is outside His Ark - the Church. So, he can not possible be participating in the exchange of commitment ... he observes from afar. The couple is uniting without the REAL presence of Christ; it is not a trinity; it is not a reflection of God himself - and thus not perfect.

Marriage A stands in front of a mirror and sees Marriage B - a reflection. What is missing in the reflection is the life of the REAL marriage - Christ.

Paul Cowan

18-02-2009, 04:55 AM

I like slogans. NIKE has a great one.

Andreas Moran

18-02-2009, 09:30 AM

So yes it is possible to argue your point.

This is not my point but a point I have seen put forward and with which I cannot agree.

Be careful when you call in to question the legitimacy of someone's marriage, what are you saying about their children? Is this a nice thing to say? Words have meaning. Be mindful, that's all I'm trying to say.

My post #96 covers this.

I do not understand the argument that 'marriage is marriage'. How can a Hindu or Muslim marriage be, for Orthodox Christians, a marriage? Yes, it means that in the world they are 'a married couple' with the legal and social implications that follow. In the case of a marriage in some Christian denomination (and the Orthodox Church is not a denomination), does this argument not entail seeing some equivalence between a Protestant and an Orthodox marriage? What does that then say about this sacrament of the Church?

So, why re-do a marriage?

I don't think it is 're-doing' it - it is a once-and-for-all sacrament between those persons.

So, in the case of a couple, who've had a non-orthodox wedding, and then get baptised later on, doesn't Christ enter their lives? So, why re-do a marriage? He's already there. In full. And we're a part of the Body. In full. Unless, our orthodox baptisms and christmations were lacking in some way? In a way that can only be completed through an orthodox marriage ceremony?

This seems to conflate several of the sacraments and as has been said that surely cannot be right. Perhaps the Fathers here could explain for us all the full depth and meaning of the Orthodox sacrament of marriage because it seems to me that arguments that an Orthodox marriage doesn't matter or isn't necessary are not taking account of these. I feel what the depth and meaning are but I'm sure the Fathers could articulate them.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-02-2009, 03:32 PM

Rather than debating what we actually do in our parishes- something which is guided by our hierarchs and then clergy- I think it is much more profitable here to discuss the two main points which seem to have come up.

One is the reality of what is done outside of the Church as compared to what occurs within the Church.

The second is how reception into the Church 'covers' what occurred outside of the Church; eg how entry into the Church covers a previous marriage.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-02-2009, 04:09 PM

the reality of what is done outside of the Church as compared to what occurs within the Church.

how reception into the Church 'covers' what occurred outside of the Church; eg how entry into the Church covers a previous marriage.

My understanding of the above two points:

What occurs within the Church is fully sacramental, it is transfigured by the life giving and transformative grace of Christ. It is life made new so that it corresponds to the closest degree possible what Christ seeks to offer us: life in Him. Briefly- outside of the Church there is much that is good in action and intention. I see no need to deny this nor its effects in terms of Christ (if that was the person's intention). However there is still a serious distinction to be made between this good which can be found outside of the Church and the sacramental reality which is found within it.

There is longstanding precedent for how entry into the Church 'covers' what came before. It is also implied in several of the Church's canons. What though is the extent to which the Church can cover what occurred outside of the Church? That question seems to underlie some of the discussion here. Obviously not everything can be covered by the Church- there is a limit beyond which it does not wish to go. Thus for example a Christian marriage outside of Orthodoxy could be covered- but a civil marriage only would probably in all situations necessitate an Orthodox marriage. What then is the difference since both kinds of marriages may have been filled with good intention and effort? This I would think comes down to the actual intention of those involved in relation to the Church. ie although (if we are talking of marriage) the couple previous to their conversion process was not even aware of Orthodoxy, the life they lived corresponded to it to some degree. Indeed if we are to seek a kind of rule in this, then how the previous life of someone corresponded to Orthodoxy is what actually allows for economia and the 'covering' in what the Church does.

Having said this however it must be stressed that the actual practice of this rule is not definitive because of how it relies on an interpretation of the life of the person who approaches the Church. In this there never will be absolute agreement nor can there be. So in this way the actual rule we will follow will be set by the hierarchs/priest/parish we are with. And from within this context there is a spectrum of understanding about the above two questions in which we will situate ourselves.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John W.

18-02-2009, 07:59 PM

Hrm. That's a bit different than I was told. I was told that Russians in general view marriage as a sacrament established prior to the Church and that they view all persons married as married even outside the Church.

It is a double joy for us in our Russian Orthodox parish when couples are received into Orthodoxy. First, they are Baptised and Chrismated. Second: We have a wedding!

Andreas Moran

18-02-2009, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by D. W. Dickens
Hrm. That's a bit different than I was told.

Told by whom?

Actually, though, the situation of Russians and those in former Soviet bloc countries is unusual. My parents-in-law are in their later mid-seventies. Obviously, they were married in Soviet times in a civil ceremony (which is actually nothing more than going along to the Palace of Weddings and registering as married). Both were baptised as infants, notwithstanding the risks. They have not had an Orthodox marriage. They now go to church, confess and are given holy communion. Strictly speaking, this is not correct - in the eyes of the Church they are not married. But there must be millions of Soviet-era elderly couples in this position. I do not know of any official pronouncement on this situation but evidently the Church does not demand that such couples have an Orthodox marriage. If this is the tacit policy of the Church it seems to me to show an appropriate measure of pastoral sensitivity. This, though, I feel, acknowledges those particular circumstances and is not a precedent to be followed in different circumstances. (Actually, my mother-in-law would rather like the sacrament of marriage but papa can't see it.)

D. W. Dickens

18-02-2009, 10:53 PM

Told by whom?

My priest when I was first inquiring. In short he told me the Greeks wouldn't make me get rebaptized, but the OCA would but I wouldn't have to get remarried (which the Greeks would insist on) because Russians view marriage as established by God previous to the creation of the Church. Marriage exists even outside the Church.

I'm paraphrasing so I might be off and I'm certainly not saying my priest is infallable.

Anna Stickles

19-02-2009, 01:57 AM

Thus for example a Christian marriage outside of Orthodoxy could be covered- but a civil marriage only would probably in all situations necessitate an Orthodox marriage. What then is the difference since both kinds of marriages may have been filled with good intention and effort? This I would think comes down to the actual intention of those involved in relation to the Church. ie although (if we are talking of marriage) the couple previous to their conversion process was not even aware of Orthodoxy, the life they lived corresponded to it to some degree. Indeed if we are to seek a kind of rule in this, then how the previous life of someone corresponded to Orthodoxy is what actually allows for economia and the 'covering' in what the Church does.

It almost sounds here like with a civil marriage by remarrying within the Church one is maybe repenting of a marriage based on wrong intentions and a worldly practice/manner of living, but that the grace of an Orthodox marriage in Christ is received by those who are already oriented toward living in a Christian manner once they enter the Church. It is a life already open that just needs to receive.

This seems to conflate several of the sacraments and as has been said that surely cannot be right.
In a sense isn't the sacramental reality of the Church one sacramental reality? Should we understand that a different sacramental grace is conferred in each sacramental ritual - marriage, ordination, monastic tonsure etc. or is it the same grace taking manifest forms according to the calling of the persons receiving?

Another question that comes to my mind is --What is the relationship of the ritual to the reality present in the Church? It seems Andreas that you are saying that there is no sacramental blessing for the couple unless they go through the ritual as an official act. Whereas I think what others are trying to say is that the sacramental grace of an Orthodox marriage can be conferred without the official ceremony simply by the fact of them being in a relationship of this type and living within the sacramental life of the Church.

We can turn it around too. If there is no repentance of a wrong type of relating what good is the ceremony? Can the grace be received?

John W.

19-02-2009, 02:10 AM

. Marriage exists even outside the Church.

No one has argued that marriage does not exist outside of the Orthodox Church.

But an Orthodox Christian marriage is a Mystery that exists only within the Orthodox Church.

"The Orthodox marriage is different from the Protestant marriage, or that of the 'Western' type. Again, the Western marriage is a contract. The Orthodox marriage is a Mystery, that is, it is one of the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church, alongside Baptism, Communion, etc. For this reason it is not those entering into matrimony who perform the Mystery, for during the entire service, they promise nothing to anyone—not to God, not to each other—but it is God Himself Who performs it. That is, the newly-married take the first steps towards the altar, 'under the crown,' but the Mystery happens not by them but over them. Compare, for example, the Mystery of the Eucharist: the person taking Communion does not transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, but piously approaches the Chalice and accepts the Holy Gifts. Of course, the one who partakes of Communion is not a soulless object upon whom some action is occurring—he is an active participant, but he is not the one who performs the act. In Protestantism, Communion is lowered to a purely symbolic act of the Protestants themselves, who swallow a biscuit and grape juice, throwing the remainder in the trash, while God Himself, in Whose 'memory' this is done, plays no role in this action. The same applies to matrimony. The Orthodox marriage is a union of grace, blessed by God, while the Protestant or civil marriage is an action taken by mortals, and for this reason is without grace. Often such a marriage is considered unlawful in Orthodox literature, and is nothing more than sinful cohabitation. Of course, this determination applies only to unwedded Orthodox Christians." -Priest Sergei Sveshnikov, Rector of the New Martyrs of Russia Orthodox Church

D. W. Dickens

19-02-2009, 04:19 AM

Fr Sergei is a bit too broad here about Protestants. Some do treat the Eucharist inappropriately, but there are many, many who do not.

In addition, there are plenty that are aware of, and emphasize the mystery of the union in marriage. I spent 36.5 years as a Protestant, and while I am well aware of all of the shortcomings, I get a little edgy when folks act like protestants are only so much hoi polloi.

It's nice that he qualifies the statement but including the previous statement shows reveals the undo prejudice of such "Orthodox literature".

I don't mind someone saying that the Holy Spirit is with the Church, I'll even accept as a matter of dogma that it's existence is unknown outside the Church. But I won't accept that no one else takes this stuff seriously and/or lives in total ignorance. There are plenty of Orthodox that for all their opportunity do not take these matters seriously. And this is worse for them than for the Protestants because they have the Truth.

I fear far more for the Orthodox who does not properly prepare themselves (for example, by holding a grievance against a brother) for communion though they never spill a drop than for the protestant who has no enemies but in their ignorance tosses the remains of their own.

But this is off the topic. Marriage clearly exists outside the Church. If you want to say that the Orthodox Church brings marriages into the Eschaton and as such has the "fullness" of marriage, that's fine. I don't see a problem with that. But at that point we have no disagreement and it's time for me to be done with this thread.

Vasiliki D.

19-02-2009, 04:29 AM

Please do not be through with this thread just yet ...

let me just put a drive through and shoot comment on the table:

[just for some sheer side stepping madness that could provide some clarity?]

Does anyone know the Greek word for marriage and what its etymological implications are?

D. W. Dickens

19-02-2009, 04:31 AM

Marriage = γάμος, right?

Rick H.

19-02-2009, 04:36 AM

V.--It's drive-by shooting! :) :) :) A drive-thru is a place where we buy beer and wine and stuff (while remaining in our car). I guess you could do a drive-by in a drive-thru; but, make sure to get the beer first before you start blasting away! :o)

Vasiliki D.

19-02-2009, 04:43 AM

Marriage = γάμος, right?

Yes! Are you Greek and u arent letting on :) There is also one other word that is used ... so, what, in your opinion, what is the relation between the following points (the hidden link):

(1) The commandment of matrimony in verse Gen. 2:24: "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh";
(2) The marriage of Christ with the Church, this "Great Mystery" as the Apostle puts it in Ephes. 5:32, and (3) The Christian matrimony

D. W. Dickens

19-02-2009, 05:08 AM

Vasiliki D.

19-02-2009, 05:25 AM

I'm not Greek, I'm just resourceful.

Honestly, I don't know V. I suppose I can go get my copy of Fr Schmemann's "For the Life of the World," and paraphrase him and sound much smarter than I am, but instead I think I'll be patient and let you surprise me.

Well, honestly, I just want to re-engage you into this topic. It is not healthy for you to want to leave because you may have taken some offence or a misgiving by someones post. So, I wanted to see if we can explore this topic from a new angle ...

I also want to understand better what your definition (not the church or the protestant) is of:
- Mystery
- Marriage ...

Mary

19-02-2009, 05:37 AM

In addition, there are plenty that are aware of, and emphasize the mystery of the union in marriage. I spent 36.5 years as a Protestant, and while I am well aware of all of the shortcomings, I get a little edgy when folks act like protestants are only so much hoi polloi.

Me too.

M

(gee... it won't let me just post a 'Me Too'. Says it's contrary to my nature, and I really have to be more verbose or no one will recognize it's me talking.

Ok. so maybe I could've just sent the "Me Too" to the author via means of the little link on his post. But the "Me Too" was not meant for the author alone, but for those who start sounding really legalistic in their posts.

What exactly is trying to be solved here? No one is denying the Sacramental nature of an Orthodox marriage. No one is denying the existance of marriage outside the orthodox church. No one is denying the fullness and the realness of an Orthodox marriage, which isn't present in outside marriages.

And we've also established that it's those who are ordained who get to decide if one needs to get married all over again or not. So what is this discussion about? I haven't been told to. And I am happy about that. Others have been told to, and they're happy about that. So what's all the hallaballoo about? Shouldn't we be extra thankful that we all just happen to tumble into the care of the bishops who seem to know what makes us happy?

Is my marriage less than yours? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Isn't God the judge of that? Isn't He the only one who truly knows how much grace He's doling out? Is there a genuine, practical and accurate way of determining how God accepts and blesses our marriages?

If there is, then there won't be any arguments, because we'll be able to calculate such things perfectly, and there won't be any confusion. If there isn't such a Grace Formula, then, isn't it enough to trust our heirarchs, and do as they say? If they say, do it over, we do it. If they say it's not needed, it's not.

Is it of any benefit to anyone to judge marriages we know nothing of?

Ok. I think I've been loquacious enough and can get this post approved by the post length calculator.

In Christ,
mary.)

D. W. Dickens

19-02-2009, 06:46 AM

Well, honestly, I just want to re-engage you into this topic. It is not healthy for you to want to leave because you may have taken some offence or a misgiving by someones post. So, I wanted to see if we can explore this topic from a new angle ...

I also want to understand better what your definition (not the church or the protestant) is of:
- Mystery
- Marriage ...

I'm not sure I took offense at any one directly, but I started struggling with my reactions to some of the background noise that seemed to be developing.

Mystery? That's actually rather important. One thing I certainly don't think mystery is, is magic. It can certainly appear that way to some Westerners and I've heard occasionally that the Church has had to remind people to not approach their faith superstitiously. The word that comes to mind when I think of mystery isn't magic, but symbol.

And I don't mean the modern sense of symbol where one thing "stands in" for something else, but they are not connected. The modern symbol is abstract. In the ancient world, symbols were connected to the thing they represented. A symbol in that since is two things brought together. If you insulted a messenger sent by the king, you were insulting the king. If our baptism symbolizes our death, then we really die in baptism. Death and the water become connected, not metaphorically, but mystically. Not magically, but in a mystery.

We are an icon, a symbol of God. Priest's are symbols of Christ. etc All of this is a mystery. It is true in a way which transcends atoms and quarks and electro-magnetic radiation, yet is intimately tied to those bits of the universe.

Marriage is such a mystery. It symbolizes everything it did before the Church as well as something new.. Christ and His relationship to His Church. It reveals something otherwise hidden, or properly it should. Sin is always corrupting what would be a more perfect testimony.

Andreas Moran

19-02-2009, 09:06 AM

This seems to conflate several of the sacraments and as has been said that surely cannot be right.

Anna wrote:
In a sense isn't the sacramental reality of the Church one sacramental reality? Should we understand that a different sacramental grace is conferred in each sacramental ritual - marriage, ordination, monastic tonsure etc. or is it the same grace taking manifest forms according to the calling of the persons receiving?

Grace means different things in different contexts. Grace is understood in a general way as indicating God's plan for our salvation. Protestants, I think, understand grace in this way but not in any further way (which is why they don't have all the sacraments). It is from this limited understanding of grace that they derive the notion that they have been saved. Grace for us Orthodox additionally indicates the ways in which the Holy Spirit is called down upon the faithful to confer upon them those gifts and qualities which are necesary for their sanctification in various ways. This sacramental grace is what leads us to say, not that we have been saved, but that we are being saved. In this sense, grace is not God's saving mercy but the power of the Holy Spirit to save through His gifts. Grace in this sense acts in various ways, though with our co-operation, to enable us to order our lives in Christ, that is, striving to attain to spiritual perfection in the various aspects of our lives and to salvation. The sacramental life of the Church is the mystical co-operation of Christ, the Head of His Church, with His Body, its members, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Each Christian has a ministry in the Church but in Apostolic times the Church recognised certain ministries as special and these became the pre-eminent grace-filled mysteries. The accomplishment of these mysteries is achieved by special prayers and actions which are rites (the word 'ritual' has an unhelpful resonance, implying some emptiness). The outward, visible acts are the vehicles of the inner, invisible grace of the Holy Spirit. Each mystery serves a purpose. Thus, Holy Unction serves to call down the grace of the Holy Spirit to confer His gift of healing, and ordination sanctifies and empowers the ordinand for his particular service in the Church. Grace does not operate without us. Grace confers power but that power will only be effective if the one who receives it employs it properly. In the sacrament of marriage (which begins, we might note, with the same doxology as the Divine Liturgy: 'Blessed is the Kingdom . . .'), the couple become a church and the grace of the Holy Spirit is called down upon them to equip and empower them to fulfil the aims of Christian marriage. It is their responsibility properly to employ that power in their marriage. In the marriage service, the priest asks God to 'send down Thy heavenly grace upon these Thy servants' and there follows a seven-fold call by the priest for God's blessing upon the couple. There is then the invocation of the Holy Spirit to conjoin the couple, and the crowning follows. Towards the end of the mystery there are further blessings. All these blessings are for the purpose of sanctifying and promoting all the constituents of marriage. Accordingly, each sacrament or mystery serves a particular purpose with the Holy Spirit invoked to bless and promote that purpose. This is why we cannot conflate the mysteries.

Rick H.

19-02-2009, 03:53 PM

What exactly is trying to be solved here? No one is denying the Sacramental nature of an Orthodox marriage. No one is denying the existance of marriage outside the orthodox church. No one is denying the fullness and the realness of an Orthodox marriage, which isn't present in outside marriages.

And we've also established that it's those who are ordained who get to decide if one needs to get married all over again or not. So what is this discussion about? I haven't been told to. And I am happy about that. Others have been told to, and they're happy about that. So what's all the hallaballoo about? Shouldn't we be extra thankful that we all just happen to tumble into the care of the bishops who seem to know what makes us happy?

Good post {again} Mary! Possibly, what is at stake here, what is trying to be solved is not really the question of marriage, because you have provided a one-stop-shopping experience for this question in your last post. And, Father Raphael has his finger on the pulse in his last post.

Possibly, there is a question behind the question here? Possibly, some think there needs to be a one-size-fits-all answer? Maybe, some recognize that there are some hefty inconsistencies in the train of thought behind what is "covered" and what is not as we consider the sacramental and the non-sacramental.

I have always thought this is what is behind most of the questions here on monachos that deal with practical aspects of Orthodox living . . . and in this sense this is why some have to become almost rabid in their defense of a perceived Orthodox Way which cannot not think and speak in any terms but the dreaded one-size-fits-all methodology. I am not saying that Orthodoxy is a house of cards (God forbid!), but I am saying that this one-size-fits-all way of knowing is a house of cards and this is why you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT let anyone mess with any of the cards!!! Especially, the cards down on the lower foundational levels.

This is not hard to understand. We see factions like this in all faith traditions and denominations (Christian and non-Christian). These are considered to be the fundamentalists of their particular groups, some are very violent in their defense of their systems, such as the Taliban. Others, are not violent at all, at least not physically. But, either way misery for all concerned. I used to listen to a guy named Chuck Swindoll on the radio many moons ago, I remember he said once that 'It seems to me that legalists/fundamentalists main motivation is based on the fact that they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.'

So possibly this is what is attempting to be solved here, a conflict that is very old and very wide spread.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-02-2009, 04:51 PM

Anna Stickles wrote:

It almost sounds here like with a civil marriage by remarrying within the Church one is maybe repenting of a marriage based on wrong intentions and a worldly practice/manner of living, but that the grace of an Orthodox marriage in Christ is received by those who are already oriented toward living in a Christian manner once they enter the Church. It is a life already open that just needs to receive.

I would say that in general we look to what came before in terms of its positive potential. Thus a civil marriage can include an element of commitment as also a Christian wedding that is not Orthodox. However it is the nature of this commitment which is likely different. So it is this which in a sense is looked at when the couple enters the Church.

In a sense isn't the sacramental reality of the Church one sacramental reality? Should we understand that a different sacramental grace is conferred in each sacramental ritual - marriage, ordination, monastic tonsure etc. or is it the same grace taking manifest forms according to the calling of the persons receiving?

It is one Holy Spirit but which works in a distinct manner according to the sacrament. To take the most outrageous example: if you were married in the Orthodox church but when you got home one of you says "I feel like a bishop!" you know there's a misunderstanding on your part :)

Another question that comes to my mind is --What is the relationship of the ritual to the reality present in the Church?... I think what others are trying to say is that the sacramental grace of an Orthodox marriage can be conferred without the official ceremony simply by the fact of them being in a relationship of this type and living within the sacramental life of the Church.

I am inclined to think that the long standing precedent of the Church 'covering' what came before through one's sacramental entry into the Church means that the grace of the Church completes what was previous. The way in which this is completed however differs partly because of the different nature of what came before. Thus to repeat the example already referred to: civil marriage is in strong need of a Church marriage while a previous Christian marriage could simply be completed by ones entry into the Church.

It should be said though that differing pastoral practices about whether to re-marry or not does not necessarily imply that in the case of re-marriage that the previous marriage never in effect was real. Rather from within the above framework of thought it could be said that re-marriage is as much a covering of what came before as simple entry into the Church would be for those who were married before. In other words with both practices what is really occurring is that the Church completes what came before but with varying pastoral practices.

Thus in terms of the some of the heat in this discussion we need to allow these two long standing aspects of Church practice- that it acknowledges the reality of what came before while also maintaining that this must be completed from within the Church. The 'how' in how this occurs is what leads to the differing pastoral practices. It also reflects the fact that what came before will not likely be seen identically within the whole Church- a measure of interpretation and thus difference in pastoral practice for similar situations must be allowed for.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John W.

19-02-2009, 06:44 PM

Anna Stickles wrote: Thus in terms of the some of the heat in this discussion we need to allow these two long standing aspects of Church practice- that it acknowledges the reality of what came before while also maintaining that this must be completed from within the Church. The 'how' in how this occurs is what leads to the differing pastoral practices. It also reflects the fact that what came before will not likely be seen identically within the whole Church- a measure of interpretation and thus difference in pastoral practice for similar situations must be allowed for.

Look what I found!

Encyclical Letter of the Holy Synod of Bishops
of the Orthodox Church in America
on Marriage
http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=4

In the Appendix:

C. Marriage Outside the Church

1. Orthodox Christians must be married by an Orthodox priest in the Orthodox Church.
An Orthodox Christian who marries outside the Orthodox Church, i.e., in some other church or civil ceremony, forfeits his membership in the Church and may no longer receive Holy Communion.

The guiding principle for the Orthodox pastor is the call to integrate the whole life of the Church. Relative to matrimonial matters, the main question is not what is "valid" or "invalid" but what has been offered and sanctified in the life of the Church; not what is lawful and convenient in this world but what has been consecrated for perfection in the world to come. "As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:28). An Orthodox Christian who excludes his marriage from this gracious union with Christ in the Church certainly excludes himself from the communion of the Church.

2. The pastor should consult his diocesan bishop before taking any final action in cases involving Orthodox couples married outside the Orthodox Church.

A pastor sometimes discovers that communicant members of his parish have not been married in the Orthodox Church. Often such persons have been the victims of misinformation and/or peculiar circumstances (wartime, anti-religious civil authorities, absence of an Orthodox Church, etc.). Obviously in these cases pastors must exercise great wisdom, understanding and compassion. But pastoral concern must not be equated with human affection. Rather, the pastor must objectively assess each case and, in consultation with his bishop, determine the appropriate course of action.

Pastors at the same time are reminded that converts to Orthodoxy are not to be remarried when they enter the Orthodox Church.

Sorry folks, I haven't found anything from the OCA that explains exactly why converts are "not to be remarried" as opposed to reasons that they should be married (as given by the churches of my experience: Greek and Russian).

This line: "An Orthodox Christian who excludes his marriage from this gracious union with Christ in the Church certainly excludes himself from the communion of the Church," seems to make the point that I have been trying to make but it is inconsistent with the last line.

I don't get it. If remaining married outside of the Church is okay for convert couples, then why isn't okay for their hypothetical children? What if the hypothetical child of one of these couples decides to get married in his future bride's family's Protestant Church because his future bride's father is the pastor there and they don't want to offend him?

If these parents tell these children that it's okay based on their own experience in the OCA, "Marriage is marriage and marriage between Orthodox Christians is an Orthodox Christian marriage no matter what form it takes because the grace of your baptism/chrismation overflows and is operative in all the sacraments (even anti-sacramental Protestant rites!) in your life past and present," then they are putting these children on the path out of communion with the Church!

It would help all of us understand where the OCA is going with this if an OCA clergyman would step up and explain these things!

Mary

19-02-2009, 06:44 PM

Thus in terms of the some of the heat in this discussion we need to allow these two long standing aspects of Church practice- that it acknowledges the reality of what came before while also maintaining that this must be completed from within the Church. The 'how' in how this occurs is what leads to the differing pastoral practices. It also reflects the fact that what came before will not likely be seen identically within the whole Church- a measure of interpretation and thus difference in pastoral practice for similar situations must be allowed for.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Sometimes I wonder, why Fr Raphael, and other moderators, even bother to allow us so much freedom to get so tangled up in our own thoughts! I mean.... this solves everything!

In Christ,
Mary

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-02-2009, 06:50 PM

Sometimes I wonder, why Fr Raphael, and other moderators, even bother to allow us so much freedom to get so tangled up in our own thoughts! I mean.... this solves everything!

In Christ,
Mary

One main reason is to allow us, or at least me as moderator, to untangle my own thoughts about an issue!

Many thanks to all posters!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Rick H.

19-02-2009, 07:12 PM

One main reason is to allow us, or at least me as moderator, to untangle my own thoughts about an issue!

Many thanks to all posters!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I appreciate the latitude here for even the most basic simple awareness of issues. To be honest, I didn't even know this was an issue (especially the civil ceremony part). My wife and I ran away to Kentucky when I was young and she was too and after stopping at the county seat for a marriage license drove to the local justice of the peace for our wedding ceremony. I remember wearing jeans and cowboy boots during the service and my wife will shoot me for sharing this; but, I remember she was chewing gum during the service. I'll bet the lawyer and our paid witnesses probably thought we were going to be a short run. But, as it turned out that day started the first day of the rest of my life and my wife has taught me the meaning of the word Beauty.

And, no Herman, there was no shotgun at my wedding! :-)

Michael Stickles

19-02-2009, 07:18 PM

Sorry folks, I haven't found anything from the OCA that explains exactly why converts are "not to be remarried" as opposed to reasons that they should be married (as given by the churches of my experience: Greek and Russian).

This line: "An Orthodox Christian who excludes his marriage from this gracious union with Christ in the Church certainly excludes himself from the communion of the Church," seems to make the point that I have been trying to make but it is inconsistent with the last line.

I don't get it. If remaining married outside of the Church is okay for convert couples, then why isn't okay for their hypothetical children? What if the hypothetical child of one of these couples decides to get married in his future bride's family's Protestant Church because his future bride's father is the pastor there and they don't want to offend him?

If these parents tell these children that it's okay based on their own experience in the OCA, "Marriage is marriage and marriage between Orthodox Christians is an Orthodox Christian marriage no matter what form it takes because the grace of your baptism/chrismation overflows and is operative in all the sacraments (even non-sacramental Protestant rites!) in your life past and present," then they are putting these children on the path out of communion with the Church!

I believe the last two paragraphs above misrepresent what the OCA is saying. Look at what they said again:

The guiding principle for the Orthodox pastor is the call to integrate the whole life of the Church. Relative to matrimonial matters, the main question is not what is "valid" or "invalid" but what has been offered and sanctified in the life of the Church; not what is lawful and convenient in this world but what has been consecrated for perfection in the world to come.

If someone who is Orthodox before marriage then gets married outside the Church, then - barring special circumstances as mentioned later in the encyclical - they are deliberately declining to offer that part of their life to be consecrated, sanctified, and integrated into the life of the Church. Hence the strong condemnation of such an act.

For a convert couple who were married before converting, however, at the time of their marriage they simply could not offer that part of their life in that way. They weren't in the Church. But when they become converts, they bring themselves to be consecrated, sanctified, and integrated into the life of the Church - and they bring their marriage along with them.

To start "inside", and deliberately go "out" to be married, is far different from starting "outside" and then bringing your marriage with you when you come "in". Or so it seems to me.

In Christ,
Michael

John W.

19-02-2009, 07:56 PM

If someone who is Orthodox before marriage then gets married outside the Church, then - barring special circumstances as mentioned later in the encyclical - they are deliberately declining to offer that part of their life to be consecrated, sanctified, and integrated into the life of the Church. Hence the strong condemnation of such an act.

For a convert couple who were married before converting, however, at the time of their marriage they simply could not offer that part of their life in that way.

"Could not offer" is not the same as "Cannot offer." The present day OCA convert couple still can offer that part of their life in "that way."

The option exists in the OCA for convert couples to present their married lives to the Church for Her blessing. As my former priest said, "The OCA encourages but does not require converts to get married in the Church."

Strangely, the option is not mentioned in the encyclical. Nevertheless, the guidance that is given:

"The guiding principle for the Orthodox pastor is the call to integrate the whole life of the Church. Relative to matrimonial matters, the main question is not what is "valid" or "invalid" but what has been offered and sanctified in the life of the Church; not what is lawful and convenient in this world but what has been consecrated for perfection in the world to come."

still supports the action of getting married in the Church (get 'er done for consecration for perfection in the world to come) more than it does the principle of "it doesn't really matter if they do or don't."

Michael Stickles

19-02-2009, 11:24 PM

"Could not offer" is not the same as "Cannot offer." The present day OCA convert couple still can offer that part of their life in "that way."

And it seems to me that they can also offer their marriage, along with everything else in their lives, at the time of their baptisms/chrismations.

The option exists in the OCA for convert couples to present their married lives to the Church for Her blessing. As my former priest said, "The OCA encourages but does not require converts to get married in the Church."

Strangely, the option is not mentioned in the encyclical.

Not strange at all, since the encyclical explicitly speaks against that option:

Pastors at the same time are reminded that converts to Orthodoxy are not to be remarried when they enter the Orthodox Church.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

In Christ,
Michael

John W.

20-02-2009, 12:14 AM

And it seems to me that they can also offer their marriage, along with everything else in their lives, at the time of their baptisms/chrismations.

Not strange at all, since the encyclical explicitly speaks against that option:

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Michael, I see that you are in the OCA jurisdiction. If it is not too much of a bother, can you ask your priest why the encyclical speaks explicitly against marrying convert couples in the Church and posting his response? During the time when we were making inquiries, an OCA Matushka told us that the decision was made at the top for missionary reasons rather than theological reasons. The Synod decided that they did not want to scandalize or embarrass potential converts away from the OCA by telling them they had to get married in the Church. Can you confirm or deny this, please?

As the number of OCA posters on this thread attests, this strategy has met with some success.

But we who are outside of the OCA must ask, "At what cost?" It is no good to try to sell potential converts the "Fulness of the Faith" when at the outset, convert couples are deprived of the blessing of the Church because of some notion of ecumenical political correctness.

Another poster said that he was not limited to the OCA circle due to his unmarried-in-the-Church state and even mentioned communing in the Greek church. My guess is that the priest in the Greek church never inquired about his married state, and assumed that the marriage was done as it is done in the Greek church. As I posted before, this standard is not universally enforced. I met a Greek Orthodox gentleman who told me that when the new priest took over his parish, some Parish Council members were forced to step down because not only were they not married in the Church, they refused to be married in the Church.

What if an OCA gentleman who refrained from getting married in the Church wanted to commune in the Greek Church knowing that they have this standard about "good standing?" If you meet with an Elder on Mount Athos, he will most certainly ask you about your married-in-the-Church status! Can this OCA gentleman in good conscience attempt to commune in such settings? (In the interest of full disclosure, one of the reasons that we wanted to get married in the Church ASAP: We were going on pilgrimage to Greece and wanted to be able to commune with a clear conscience.)

It would be the devil's work if this thread only taught OCA parishoners to steer clear of the Greeks, veer away from Athonites and other like-traditioned Orthodox churches. No, OCA unmarrieds need to figure out if they want to be part of the wider Church or just stay "American."

D. W. Dickens

20-02-2009, 12:34 AM

It would be the devil's work if this thread only taught OCA parishoners to steer clear of the Greeks, veer away from Athonites and other like-traditioned Orthodox churches. No, OCA unmarrieds need to figure out if they want to be part of the wider Church or just stay "American."

I think that's unnecessarily inflammatory.

Unless your Bishop is pronouncing anathema against mine, we are both part of the catholic Church. Such things as we have discussed are clearly in the purview of Bishop and Synod's economia. If my Bishop believes this is best for my salvation what are you to say of it?

I am obedient to my Bishop.

If a Greek priest or others wants to exercise caution and ask that I not commune, I'll respect that. But to say that we aren't a part of the Body of Christ is not in your authority to say.

Antonia Colias

20-02-2009, 12:53 AM

Puzzled poster here. . . Why would a married couple, the members of which converted to Orthodox Christianity, resist having their marriage blessed within the Church? Why would anybody attempt such "logic" as "We don't want to scare away converts" ?! One might as well disguise and/or rewrite the entire Church, lest somebody be "frightened off" ! Isn't this dread of appearing "exclusionary" the same impulse that sometimes leads one to embrace the "branch theory" of Christianity, among other oddities?

I entered the faith before marriage; however, I entered with the perspective that, although I neither understood everything, nor even believed everything [yet], the Church (cumulative through many centuries) was far wiser, and far more knowledgeable than I was. It was not my ignorant place to argue with saints and other God-centered people who had worked through all of the important issues. My task was to cast aside my past, and to seek Christ in His Church. Many other people come in with this same mindset.

Praying that this doesn't fan any flames. . .

Antonia

John W.

20-02-2009, 12:53 AM

I think that's unnecessarily inflammatory.

Unless your Bishop is pronouncing anathema against mine, we are both part of the catholic Church. Such things as we have discussed are clearly in the purview of Bishop and Synod's economia. If my Bishop believes this is best for my salvation what are you to say of it?

I am obedient to my Bishop.

If a Greek priest or others wants to exercise caution and ask that I not commune, I'll respect that. But to say that we aren't a part of the Body of Christ is not in your authority to say.

D.W. Dickens, I beg your forgiveness. I didn't mean "part" as in member of the Body of Christ, I meant "part" as a full participant in the Body of Christ, meaning being able with a free conscience to partake of the Mysteries in places like Greek Churches and Mount Athos.

The current OCA policy does not inform its unmarrieds of the potential pitfalls of their little "t" tradition on the non-marriage of converts in the Church namely: 1) The Withholding of the Marriage Blessing on Convert Couples 2) Not In Good Standing status in other Orthodox Churches.

If they did inform their potential convert couples of these pitfalls, how many would choose the option of getting married in the Church, an option that exists (we have a copy of the OCA service in our bookshelf) though it is not advertised for reasons of political correctness?

Anna Stickles

20-02-2009, 01:36 AM

John,

The main point that you are failing to see here really has nothing to do with marriage at all. It has to do with an understanding of obedience and our relationships within the Church. To set up universal rules separated from the real and living presence of Christ in the Bishops and pastors of the Church is Catholic not Orthodox.

What obedience means is different in different contexts. Another thing that Orthodoxy teaches is not to judge what is best for others but pay attention to our own relationship with God.

The Orthodox faith is not anything if it not about reality. Real obedience in real circumstances to real people. Your own ROCOR priest has stressed this pastoral dimension and you have totally ignored him.

Herman in an earlier post has stressed that it is certainly not Orthodox to ourselves read the rules and sit judgement on how to apply them. We are then putting ourselves in the position of trying to pastor others.

Could not offer" is not the same as "Cannot offer." The present day OCA convert couple still can offer that part of their life in "that way."

The option exists in the OCA for convert couples to present their married lives to the Church for Her blessing.

The consistent problem I see here is that you are assuming that the only way a convert couple can receive the blessing of the Church is to go through the crowning ceremony. Some couples may just go in and talk to their parish priest about the practical aspects of how to live an Orthodox married life and receive a blessing that way. It is in bringing our lives fully into obedience to the Church that the blessing is received. I suspect that the first question an elder on Mt Athos would ask is "Are you living in obedience?" and in good conscience the OCAer could say yes. As one elder from Athos has said, "Obedience is the most important thing. Everything is won through obedience." Elder Haralambos Dionysiatis.

John W.

20-02-2009, 01:46 AM

And it seems to me that they can also offer their marriage, along with everything else in their lives, at the time of their baptisms/chrismations.

Then why does the OCA have a separate "Crowning" of a marriage service for convert couples?

Anna Stickles

20-02-2009, 01:56 AM

Then why does the OCA have a separate "Crowning" of a marriage service for convert couples?

Because of the pastoral dimension of the Church. It is appropriate in some circumstances

Father David Moser

20-02-2009, 01:58 AM

I think it would be beneficial to look at the marriage service as it is structured in Orthodoxy. The sacrament of Holy Matrimony as it is administered today actually consists of two parts - the betrothal and the crowning. The betrothal is the promise of the husband and wife to be married to each other and is signified by the exchange of rings. The second part, the crowning, is the actual joining of the two to become one (sacramental matrimony) and is signified by the exchanging of crowns.

Heterodox and civil marriages generally correspond to the betrothal. They are promises by the bride and groom to give themselves to each other and to be faithful to one another. As a symbol of their promise, they exchange rings. I know of no heterodox or civil marriages that involve the crowning in any shape.

Considering this it seems to me that it is logical to equate heterodox marriage with Orthodox betrothal and therefore to receive such couples as betrothed but not crowned. Thus a crowning is not a "remarriage" but rather a further sanctification and fulfillment of the promise previously made.

In her wideranging compassion, the Church has in many cases allowed those who were married previously outside the Church to enter the Church in the married state not requiring even a crowning, however, like reception by Chrismation this is not the baseline practice, but rather an adaptation, a mercy, for our own weakness.

I know of a couple who were received and not crowned and when the husband went to visit the Holy Mountain, he was told by the fathers there that because he was not married in the Church he would not be allowed to commune there. I don't know if this is a universal practice or if it is only a single monastery or community. I also know that when I was first put forward as a candidate for ordination, the Bishop specifically asked my then confessor whether or not I was married in the Church (and I had been as it was the practice in our then OCA parish to receive all converts by baptism and to crown all marriages for married converts). The implication was that if I had not been crowned, that this should be done before I was presented at the cathedral for ordination.

Fr David Moser

John W.

20-02-2009, 02:00 AM

The main point that you are failing to see here really has nothing to do with marriage at all. It has to do with an understanding of obedience and our relationships within the Church. To set up universal rules separated from the real and living presence of Christ in the Bishops and pastors of the Church is Catholic not Orthodox.

The point that many OCA people this thread are failing to see that despite the OCA Encyclical (I get the feeling that the OCA people didn't even know it existed), the OCA does have the option of convert couples getting married in the Church. A quick Google search even revealed that one of our Priest-moderators received this blessing when he was in the OCA! The former OCA Metropolitan was our Bishop and we got married in the Church, so the "understanding of obedience" was certainly no stranger to our decision!

Dear Brothers and Sisters in the OCA, I pray that you will receive this blessing in your lives.

It's there if you want it. If I have offended anyone on this board in trying to make this simple point, I ask for your forgiveness.

John W.

20-02-2009, 03:59 AM

Reposting with clarifiers. Sorry, but my Edit button seems to have disappeared from my previous post.

The point that many OCA people this thread are failing to see that despite the OCA Encyclical (I get the feeling that the OCA people didn't even know it existed), the OCA does have the option for convert couples to get married in the Church.

A quick Google search even revealed that one of our Priest-moderators received this blessing when he was in the OCA! The former OCA Metropolitan was our Diocesan Bishop when we got married in the Church, so the "understanding of obedience" was certainly no stranger to our decision!

Dear Brothers and Sisters in the OCA, I pray that you will receive this blessing in your lives.

It's there if you want it.

If I have offended anyone on this board in trying to make this simple point, I ask for your forgiveness.

D. W. Dickens

20-02-2009, 04:04 AM

Vasiliki D.

20-02-2009, 04:56 AM

Father David, this is most a most edifying post!
The Church has been so merciful to me. I find Christ and His Church have been so graceful it offends man's sensibilities!
We will not turn down any gift She has to give.

Glory to God Mr Dickens that you decided to stay! Glory to God for a wonderful post! and Glory to God that you looked at this discussion not juridically but sacramentally - that it is a gift!

So, the fact you want to take as many gifts as you can IS the right attitude! Its looking at the glass as half-full!!

I hope others approach the sensibility of this like you!

Michael Stickles

20-02-2009, 05:02 AM

Michael, I see that you are in the OCA jurisdiction. If it is not too much of a bother, can you ask your priest why the encyclical speaks explicitly against marrying convert couples in the Church and posting his response? During the time when we were making inquiries, an OCA Matushka told us that the decision was made at the top for missionary reasons rather than theological reasons. The Synod decided that they did not want to scandalize or embarrass potential converts away from the OCA by telling them they had to get married in the Church. Can you confirm or deny this, please?

A better strategy might be to email the question to Father John Matusiak, who handles the "Questions and Answers (http://www.oca.org/QAIndex.asp?SID=3)" pages on the OCA website (email address is at the bottom of the page). That will probably have a better chance of being an "official" answer. He replied within a couple of days when I sent in a question last year regarding fasting.

As for everything else, Anna's posts pretty much say what I would have.

Michael

Andreas Moran

20-02-2009, 10:50 AM

it is certainly not Orthodox to ourselves read the rules and sit judgement on how to apply them. We are then putting ourselves in the position of trying to pastor others.

In relation to matters such as those being discussed here, this point is sometimes argued, in one form or another, against someone. John W is well able to speak for himself but it occurs to me that he and others with similar views are not seeking to impose uniformity of practice (as it may be perceived) or to judge anyone but perhaps feel some concern for the full integrity of the Church. There must be a boundary between local variations in practice and practices which arguably go beyond what is proper to the Orthodox Church; there are instances (and I'm not arguing that the issue here is one of them) where practices, on any reasonable assessment, are the latter. I don't think we should interpret such concern as I have mentioned, even if it is misplaced (and I'm not arguing that it is or is not here), as seeking to judge others.

Michael Stickles

20-02-2009, 03:11 PM

... it occurs to me that he and others with similar views are not seeking to impose uniformity of practice (as it may be perceived) or to judge anyone but perhaps feel some concern for the full integrity of the Church. There must be a boundary between local variations in practice and practices which arguably go beyond what is proper to the Orthodox Church; there are instances (and I'm not arguing that the issue here is one of them) where practices, on any reasonable assessment, are the latter.

Thanks, Andreas - I knew I had to be missing something while trying to see the view from the "other side" accurately, and I think that was it.

It is sad that we have a situation where an Orthodox Christian, in good standing and full submission within his or her own jurisdiction, can nevertheless be considered out of good standing in another jurisdiction and denied participation in the Eucharist, even though those jurisdictions are in communion with each other. It seems like one or the other side must be out of line - but which?

The frustrating thing to me is that both sets of arguments seem like "reasonable assessments" (yes, I come down on one side, but I certainly can't say that the other has no merit or is unreasonable), and I can't find much in the Scriptures, canons or Fathers that would help clear things up.

In Christ,
Michael

Andreas Moran

20-02-2009, 04:17 PM

It seems like one or the other side must be out of line - but which?

The frustrating thing to me is that both sets of arguments seem like "reasonable assessments"

Frustrating indeed, and regrettable. Whether someone sees some issue as on one side of the line or the other apparently depends on which jurisdiction he is in and, perhaps, where he is (in which country, I mean). He might be in good (though not ideal!) order with local Church A yet be denied communion in local Church B as Michael says (and by 'local Church' I mean jurisdiction - EP, MP, etc.). This may be down to such variations in practice among Churches which, however, do not prompt B to doubt the Orthodoxy of A. For example, confession before every communion is something I have to accept in Moscow but it is not required in the Greek jurisdictions (EP and A) here. But the various Churches are nevertheless in communion with one another and I can, provided I conform to local practice, receive communion in any. Relative strictness is one thing and we can have uniformity without identicalness; but questioning whether some practice compromises Orthodoxy is another thing and there may be disagreement about that. One would have thought that there ought not to be. Letting individual bishops decide doesn't seem the answer because that can lead to inconsistency in matters where there is real concern; both within that bishop's flock and in other jurisdictions there may be questions as to whether some practice compromises Orthodoxy, and it is unfair to expect individual faithful to obey blindly where there is concern. I would have thought that on any view, giving communion to non-Orthodox was the wrong side of the line, yet we are told this happens. Do we not have canons to tell us what is and what is not proper? While canons may be guides in relation to pastoring individuals, are they not to be seen as more rule-like in determing what is permissible practice in the Church and what is not?

Anna Stickles

20-02-2009, 05:03 PM

Andreas I too thank you for being the peacemaker here and raising some very valid points. No doubt I was rather overbearing.

I am reminded of a quote from Fr Raphael in another thread on these types of issues.

It could very well be that this is really part of a larger issue.

Apart from the question of tradition, customs and respect for these there's something else at work here I think.

Within the Church there is an incredible variety of traditions and customs. These vary from place to place. But they also vary according to time (we do prostrations at certain weekday Liturgies but not during the Paschal season) and from person to person.

We need to learn that this isn't sign of confusion but rather a call for us to be constantly sensitive to the church situation we are in. This in turn teaches us to focus ourselves on what is going on around us. And this in turn gradually leads to being malleable to what is before us.

Chaos & self-will shouldn't be part of Church life. But unpredictable variety is. It's what God allows since the Body is made up of so many different people. Church life in a way is the constant shifting of balance between these two.

On the other hand there's usually something false about the efforts we see from time to time to regiment things and to try and be sure we're all doing things in the exact same way. As we can see from experience such efforts never succeed in the Church. And there's probably a very good reason why they don't.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

But you are right that it is not always so easy to tell which issues need firmness and which are a call to be malleable. As we approach Lent it is a good time to reflect on the fact that not only are we living in Christ and Christ in us but we also are living in Adam and Adam in us. The Bride of Christ is being perfected but is not perfect yet and in the meantime this brokenness calls for a lot of patience and sensitivity on our part.

Nina

20-02-2009, 05:12 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-02-2009, 05:31 PM

I sense that this discussion is cooling down. But if I could remind all that we should avoid issues that center on jurisdictional debate. The Forum isn't the place for this.

What is useful I think is to attempt a positive search for the theological meaning of these different positions. The Church after all does in practice show latitude. So it is the reason for this latitude and difference that we should seek to understand.

Apart from this jurisdictional disagreements will never be solved here. All that will occur is to repeat the same disagreement that we see outside of the Forum.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Mary

20-02-2009, 06:27 PM

Again another thread tainted by modern day arrogance! I am tired of this kind of "orthodoxy". Me, me, me. I, I, I. My needs, my needs, my needs even in the Church.

Yes I have my needs, and desires, and likes and dislikes as a person too. However I do not try to convert the Church to me. I try to convert myself to the Church. Personal interests -like are being defended lately on monachos- are not the way to go in our Orthodoxy!

The Church, I believe, is far more compassionate, that we are.

Everybody is different, and everyone has different needs. Sometimes, it is even unimaginable, how broken up people are. There are some things that they are simply not capable of.

I am reminded of a story of Elder Porphyrios. He could see the souls of people, like we can see faces. A woman came to him, who surprised even him, because of how broken her soul was. He gave her something very simple to do, that would help her to start recovering. The story never mentioned what that thing was, just that, to anyone else, it might seem totally insignificant, and maybe even ridiculous.

The American Orthodox church is still young, compared to the Greek and the Russian and the others. It could be that the Converts are more broken than those who have had centuries of Orthodoxy strengthening their souls. You've had generations of ancestors praying for you even before you were born. We haven't. There has to be some merit to their prayers for you, right? It must've, in some way, given you some kind of strength, that we lack, right?

Elder Porphyrios was Greek. And he knew how to show compassion. We'd do well to learn from him. Some of us, may be so broken, that the things expected of us, may seem to mock the much more difficult things that are required of you. But maybe, just maybe, that's all we can do right now.

And if we remain faithful in little things... we'll eventually be entrusted with more.

in Christ,
mary.

David C.

20-02-2009, 07:00 PM

I first raised the question of being baptised for a third time last July. I am now happy to say that, last Sunday, I was received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation. My journey towards Orthodoxy has now finished and my odyssey within Orthodoxy has begun.

I pray that I may now be its true and faithful son.

I would like to thank those who took the time to answer my questions and, in particular, Andreas and his wife who gave me very practical assistance.

David

Rick H.

20-02-2009, 07:10 PM

When I read Father Raphael's words:

What is useful I think is to attempt a positive search for the theological meaning of these different positions. The Church after all does in practice show latitude. So it is the reason for this latitude and difference that we should seek to understand.

I started composing a response, but Mary has essentially written what I would have written as it relates to the pastoral dimension:

Everybody is different, and everyone has different needs. Sometimes, it is even unimaginable, how broken up people are. There are some things that they are simply not capable of.

So, I wonder if we see the differences in positions and can understand the reason for a theological elasticity *simply* as has been pointed out already in this thread, in terms of the expression and administration of pastoral care/theology. I know I'm probably driving folks a little nutty with my constant quoting of Fr. Dcn. Matthew's post about pastoral theology and "theology in the first person." But, seriously, without this understanding, coupled with the fact that there is multiplicity in oneness (which I see as 'The' Orthodox Way), without this kind of latitude as it relates to this topic and many others, we are left only with an institution filled with orthodox automatrons, as opposed to any kind of genuine community/communion.

Isa Almisry

20-02-2009, 07:25 PM

D.W. Dickens, I beg your forgiveness. I didn't mean "part" as in member of the Body of Christ, I meant "part" as a full participant in the Body of Christ, meaning being able with a free conscience to partake of the Mysteries in places like Greek Churches and Mount Athos.

Odd, since every Orthodox marriage and those accepted by the Church includes a woman who is not allowed to commune with a free conscience in a place like Mount Athos.

The current OCA policy does not inform its unmarrieds of the potential pitfalls of their little "t" tradition on the non-marriage of converts in the Church namely: 1) The Withholding of the Marriage Blessing on Convert Couples 2) Not In Good Standing status in other Orthodox Churches.

If they did inform their potential convert couples of these pitfalls, how many would choose the option of getting married in the Church, an option that exists (we have a copy of the OCA service in our bookshelf) though it is not advertised for reasons of political correctness?

The reason behind the OCA policy is St. Paul's passage about the state you were in when you were called. Say, instance, a married person comes to convert, but the spouse refuses. Are you going to say they must divorce their spouse? Their status as married is accepted when they are. Hence, no one can convert and then turn around and abandon their spouse with the pretense with "we really weren't married."

Btw, the Antiochian Archdiocese doesn't require remarriage, except in the case of those for ordination (a requirement of recent vintage).

Daniel Harrison

21-02-2009, 11:55 AM

CANON XLVI of the Holy Apostles:
"We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath the believer with an infidel?

Why is it that we have to not hurt the feelings of other so called "Churches" or "brothers and sisters" of different faiths? Did we forget that the Holy Orthodox Church is the True Church of Christ and that all others are in Heresy or Schism from the True Church of Christ?

Truly what part hath the believer with an infidel? How can it be acceptable to recognize Roman Catholic and Protestant Baptisms as acceptable forms of baptism? "I believe in one Baptism for the remission of sins".... and thats Orthodox Baptism the baptism of Christ in his Church.

Anna Stickles

21-02-2009, 03:05 PM

When the heat dissipates the head clears and something struck me that maybe we have been overlooking.

I am inclined to think that the long standing precedent of the Church 'covering' what came before through one's sacramental entry into the Church means that the grace of the Church completes what was previous.

Interesting. I asked my priest (also OCA) essentially the same question, and his reply was that for a married couple coming into the Church, their marriage is blessed and sanctified by their respective baptisms/chrismations, and so they're just as married as an Orthodox couple who married in the Church.

We have it on good authority that the sacramental grace is present for couples coming into the Church, but the question I think that we have not fully engaged with is understanding how this grace is taken hold of by the couple.

St Theophan the Recluse says this

You already know that grace descends upoon free desire and searching, and that only by the mutual cooperation of these two is there beun the new grace given life which is in accordance both the grace and the anture of the free person. The Lord gives grace freely. But He asks that a man seek it and receive it with desire, dedicating Himself entirely to God...

And thus through Baptism the seed of life in Christ is placed in the infant and exists in him; but it is as though it did not exist; it acts as an educating power in him. Spiritual life, conceived by the grace of Baptism in the infant, becomes the property of the man and is mnifest in its complete form in accordance no only with grace, but also with the character of the rational creature, from the time when he, coming to awareness by his own free will dedcates himself to God and appropriates to himself the power of grace in himself by receiving it with desire, joy and gratitude."

I think that these same principles apply not only to baptism but to the grace that sanctifies the marriage. When someone within the Church refuses to get a Church marriage, to deny them communion is just making visible a truth that already exists. Their rebellion has already cut them off from grace, but because we are so blind and dead in our sin and don't really notice or feel the effects of loosing grace, the only way that this can be made real to them is the real act of refusing them communion.

Thinking this through I would have to say that the Greek OC has the better practice in requiring converts to be crowned in the Church. The couple is given a forum for obedience and in submitting to this they are bringing their marriage under the authority of the Church in real terms at least in some minimal way even if they don't keep up with pastoral guidance after this.

However, in the OCA it is possible for a couple to completely withhold their marriage and never really dedicate this part of their life to God nor appropriate to themselves the power of grace. Despite being adults they can remain 'infants' all their lives, or be living in a hidden rebellion that has no means for being brought to light and healed.

Just from personal experience when Michael and I visited our parish priest with the express desire of giving this part of our lives to the Church and bringing it under Her authority their was a real grace and blessing in this. Something that had been lacking was filled. Before this we had been faithfully living within the sacramental life of the Church and going to individual confessions over various normal struggles in the marriage relationship, but it was when we went as a couple to submit this part of our lives to the Church as a conscious decision of will that a real change occured.

Rom 1:5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

Vasiliki D.

22-02-2009, 04:45 AM

I am a little biased in that I have a similar thinking style to Nina on this matter ... but I dont want to post a pro-or-con to this discussion. I just found a patristic comment and wanted to dump it into the thread. it says much and it says little ... but all things ancient are lovely:

from Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians:

"... Now, since Jesus Christ has given such glory to you, it is only right that you should give glory to Him; and this, if sanctification is to be yours in full measure, means uniting in a common act of submission and acknowledging the authority of your bishop and clergy. Not that this is an order I am issuing, as though I were someone of importance ... ....

I venture to recommend an action that reflects the mind of God. For we can have no life apart from Jesus Christ; and as He represents the mind of the Father, so our bishops, even those who are stationed in the remotest parts of the world, represent the mind of Jesus Christ. ...

That is why it is proper for your conduct and your practices to correspond closely with the mind of the bishop. ... who are a credit to God ... the result is a hymn of praise to Jesus Christ from minds that are in unison, and affections that are in harmony. ...

If I myself reached such intimacy with your bishop in a brief space of time ... how much more fortunate must I count you ....

"

Rick H.

22-02-2009, 02:08 PM

After reading Vasiliki's post, it occurs to me that IF the folks in Ignatius's local church (an individual or a group of individuals) would have submitted to his authority, and sought to be in line with the mind of their Bishop only when they thought he was exercising sound judgement--otherwise, they will reject him and leave him in search of another Bishop, another congregation . . . THEN there is no difference in this kind of ancient thinking than there is in the modern day Protestant mindset.

We see this today in the local churches as well, when folks don't like a change the preist has made or a decision that he has made, they vote with their feet, they say "see ya" and then they go submit to the authority of another preist somewhere else. This is the way Protestants think and operate, 'as long as you keep me happy, I will submit to your authority' . . . as long as you teach and preach what I think is correct, according to my understanding of theology, then I will continue to submit to your authority.

I wonder if we are too hard on the Protestants at times for the way they operate, for the way they vote with their feet.

John W.

22-02-2009, 09:07 PM

We see this today in the local churches as well, when folks don't like a change the preist has made or a decision that he has made, they vote with their feet, they say "see ya" and then they go submit to the authority of another preist somewhere else. This is the way Protestants think and operate, 'as long as you keep me happy, I will submit to your authority' . . . as long as you teach and preach what I think is correct, according to my understanding of theology, then I will continue to submit to your authority.

Rick,

Before I left my former parish, someone used almost your exact words to me to try to convince me that my desire to leave and find teachers/practitioners of a certain time-tested, Saint producing, salvific Orthodox Way of living (unfortunately belittled by many in my former parish as "little t traditions") was a heterodox impulse that had to resisted. Later, this same counselor informed me that he had an escape plan to go to another Orthodox jurisdiction in the event that the leader of his jurisdiction decided to try to reintroduce the Church Calendar (aka "Old Calendar").

This makes me think that "voting with one's feet" is a natural response to actions which go against one's conscience and not just a protestant-thing. One still remains in the Orthodox Church even when one moves from one parish within the Church to another. The Protestant-thing kicks in when an Orthodox Christian leaves the Church altogether.

Rather than being tarred with a protestant brush, I think those of us who have made painful decisions to leave in order to seek our salvation in other parts of the Church would rather our motives be characterized by the following words from one of our Saints:

"When all men were worshipping the golden idol in Babylon, the three holy youths did not condemn anyone to perdition. They were not concerned about what others did, but only about them-selves, lest they fall away from true piety. And Daniel, when cast into the den, in precisely the same way did not condemn any of those who, in fulfilling the law of Darius, did not want to pray to God, but he kept his duty in mind and desired rather to die than to sin and be punished by his conscience for transgressing the Law of God. And may God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone shall be saved. However, I shall sooner agree to die than, having apostatized in some way from the right faith, endure torments of conscience."

Rick H.

22-02-2009, 10:03 PM

You have made some good points there John. That phrase hits home with me in the quote in your concluding paragraph:

. . . torments of conscience.

Vasiliki D.

22-02-2009, 11:10 PM

Dear Rick,

This is a classic example of how, when we read posts, we need to ask the right questions before drawing conclusions ... I will explain why.

The snippet from the Epistle to the Ephesians, is just that - only a small piece of a greater picture. It is interesting that you concluded that the church/parish there (possibly) did not have good relations with their Bishop. If you put my excerpts back into the entire passage - the image you get of this church is entirely opposite to that which could be assumed from my post! :-)

The Ephesians were a very GOOD church ... his epistle actually starts:

"To the deservedly happy church at EPHESUS in Asia; notably blessed with greatness by God the Father out of His own fullness; marked out since the beginning of time for glory unfading and unchanging; and owing its unity and its election to the true and undoubted Passion, by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God"

So, you see, my snippets in isolation do not give the true picture of what is going on within that church OR the true opinion of Ignatius about that Church! :)

I wanted to point that out because I have noticed, and I am guilty of this too, that many of us read posts in Monachos and draw our own conclusions about what the other person is writing about without asking the right questions first to clarify first if that person is indeed saying what we think they are saying - I am .. guilty for sure, so I am not preaching merely pointing out what I have observed about people responding to me.

Having said all that, however, you actually make valid points in your post and raise some good questions for further discussion.

Rick H.

22-02-2009, 11:46 PM

The Bishop and The Catholicity of the Local Church

Vassiliki, (I decided it was too informal to call you 'V' all the time--maybe if we become better acquainted as online friends I can call you 'V') :-) . . . I was using Ignatius's church as an example to try to make points. I should have used the expression, "for example," or something like that. I often create hypothetical situations to try to make certain points. I know I write too casually more than I should. A few years ago I made a study of the letters of Ignatius and aside from attempting to play off of your post, I think I was using him for an example because he was such a strong leader and great bishop as well as one of our greatest examples of 'submission.'

Thanks for the positive comments about my points and questions raised. I think they really do play a huge part in this discussion. On the one hand, I can fully sympathize with John in his last post (more than most know); but, on the other hand, ever since I have been here on monachos many--especially Herman--have written some very powerful contributions about the Orthodox Way as it concerns a relational ministry in general and one's bishop in particular. So either what has been expressed over the past couple years here about the link between the Orthodox man/woman is true or it is not.

Also, I can't help but to think that the writing of John Zizioulas on the catholicity of the local church does not come into play here in this most recent turn that this thread has taken.

Vasiliki D.

22-02-2009, 11:53 PM

Rick H.

23-02-2009, 12:27 AM

Vasiliki D.

23-02-2009, 01:00 AM

A tricky kettle of fish?/! Oh, man Vasiliki, you are too much!. . . (still laughing) :o) . . . I don't even know what that expression means, for sure, but, I think I am imagining that in the foreword of one of his books, or on the back of a book jacket and it sounds correct but funny at the same time.

When you talk about a change in his thinking, I would really like to know if this is accurate. I try not to, but I think I read a great deal of what he writes as it relates to "an authentic catholicity of the Church which must include both the east and the west."

I have many "Vick-isms", so, they will trickle in from time to time :) Also, you can call me "VV" that is what Nina does ...so, go for it ... although, if you are upset with me and have to use the entire name I prefer Vasiliki than Vicki!

As for Zizoulias, I dont know the man or his writings ..it is merely what I have heard ... I know that his writing represented for most of his life a pro-Ecumenism POV. However, I heard that in the last few years ... he had a change of thought with Ecunism .. nothing I can quantify, prove or say is either true or false.

Nina

23-02-2009, 01:08 AM

I have many "Vick-isms", so, they will trickle in from time to time :) Also, you can call me "VV" that is what Nina does ...so, go for it ... although, if you are upset with me and have to use the entire name I prefer Vasiliki than Vicki!

I came up with V. Then I thought to change it to VV because you are full of life so VV is more fitted to you. Since VV reminds me of the Latin noun that is the origin of the word vivify in English. :) How is that for a befitting name?! :)

I also heard that Zizioulas changed his stance on Ecumenism. However, as Herman likes to remind us always, we do not believe in the infallibility of one person, so even if he had not changed the stance, the matter is not set on stone.

David Newman

02-03-2009, 11:47 PM

I wanted to start from scratch because there is a lot here. But I want to know why ultra-conservative Greek churches rebaptize people who already received proper baptism?

Herman Blaydoe

03-03-2009, 12:09 AM

I wanted to start from scratch because there is a lot here. But I want to know why ultra-conservative Greek churches rebaptize people who already received proper baptism?

The short answer is that they don't believe it was a "proper" baptism.

Beyond that, if they "re-baptize" someone already accepted into the Orthodox Church, there are many who believe they act outside of the Holy Tradition they claim to uphold. But if they require a full baptism for someone who was previously baptized in a heterodox church, they are well within their prerogatives.

Herman

Sergei Sveshnikov

03-03-2009, 12:13 AM

Dear in the Lord D.W.,
I was both amazed and amused to find my article referenced in a very recent post. Amazed, because what was quoted is a statement from a short paper originally written in Russian for a Russian-language newspaper five or six years ago. Amused, because you appear to be replying to statements that I had not made. You are absolutely correct: some Orthodox authors have painted a very shallow picture of Protestantism, but I believe that this discussion is about a different issue. I shall try to clarify some of my comments from the paper of same-sex unions.

Fr Sergei is a bit too broad here about Protestants.

You are correct, but the paper was not an analysis of Protestant beliefs and attitudes--that would take up several volumes. There are so many Protestant variations that at some point it becomes necessary to draw the line and use a generalization.

Some do treat the Eucharist inappropriately, but there are many, many who do not

I did not write that their treatment of the Eucharist was inappropriate. I actually think that it is quite appropriate for what it is: grape juice and crackers. It is true, however, that some Protestant movements take considerably greater care of the foodstuffs than the way I described in my paper. We have a Russian Pentecostal church in Oregon, for example, that appears to be showing Orthodox-like respect for their Eucharist. This, however, is not due to some fundamental doctrine within the Pentecostal movement, but rather due to the Orthodox influence.

In addition, there are plenty that are aware of, and emphasize the mystery of the union in marriage. I spent 36.5 years as a Protestant, and while I am well aware of all of the shortcomings, I get a little edgy when folks act like protestants are only so much hoi polloi.

While the English version of my paper does speak of "mystery," what I originally wrote in Russian is "sacrament." Protestants, like all humans, find some things, including marriage, to be a bit mysterious. Yet most Protestant and neo-Protestant congregations are non-sacramental. In other words, they do not recognize marriage (or anything else, for that matter, including the Eucharist) as a sacrament. And this is precisely the point I was trying to make. As for the "hoi polloi," again, I did not raise this issue at all in my paper. There are "the masses" in any denomination and religious tradition, Protestant and Orthodox alike. Yet the most respected and notable Protestant leaders and theologians have consistently rejected sacramentality, including that of marriage.

It's nice that he qualifies the statement but including the previous statement shows reveals the undo prejudice of such "Orthodox literature".

Thank you for this flattery, but my very short paper on a very narrow topic commissioned by a specific publication can hardly qualify for the lofty title "Orthodox literature." I did, however, write a book which has been recently published.

I don't mind someone saying that the Holy Spirit is with the Church, I'll even accept as a matter of dogma that it's existence is unknown outside the Church. But I won't accept that no one else takes this stuff seriously and/or lives in total ignorance.

Quite the opposite. I would argue that Protestants do take their faith seriously, and that they very seriously reject the sacramental nature of marriage. Nowhere is my paper did I make a charge that Protestants "live in total ignorance." This could be an interesting topic for a discussion of the nature of knowing if the Spirit of Truth is lacking, but I did not touch this issue in my paper on marriage.

There are plenty of Orthodox that for all their opportunity do not take these matters seriously. And this is worse for them than for the Protestants because they have the Truth. I fear far more for the Orthodox who does not properly prepare themselves (for example, by holding a grievance against a brother) for communion though they never spill a drop than for the protestant who has no enemies but in their ignorance tosses the remains of their own

Once again, I must point out that most Protestants do not "toss the remains" in ignorance. They are very much aware that their crackers and juice are not the Body and Blood of Christ, but merely crackers and juice. The act that they perform is a symbolic remembrance, not a sacramental Eucharist. The Protestant movement has from the beginning rejected any notion of transubstantiation and adopted a radically opposite approach (for comparison, the Orthodox position is also different from the Catholic scholastic approach, but not radically).

I can imagine that some have referred to Protestants as "ignorant," but this is not my view, nor did I refer to them as such in my paper.

But this is off the topic. Marriage clearly exists outside the Church. If you want to say that the Orthodox Church brings marriages into the Eschaton and as such has the "fullness" of marriage, that's fine. I don't see a problem with that. But at that point we have no disagreement and it's time for me to be done with this thread.

Of course, marriage exists outside the Church! I clearly state as much in my paper. What does not exist outside the Church is sacraments. Furthermore, my position is not based on the presence or absence of the Holy Spirit, but on the very tradition of the West. It should not come as a surprise, but the Western marriage is an exchange of vows: the two people quite literally promise things to each other. In legal terminology, it is called a "contract" and there are contractual relations between the parties. In the understanding of Western Christians, God serves as the witness to the contract: the two people make promises to each other before God. The actors, if you will, are the people, not God. This does not show any ignorance on the part of Protestants--just a difference.

The Orthodox marriage is very different. The two people do not utter a single word! Two questions are asked before the ceremony begins (at least, in the Russian tradition), and the rest is "God, give this" and "God, grant that"--not a single promise, not a vow. This, in my opinion (by the way, the article was titled "Opinion"), is a significant difference in understanding of what a sacrament is.

Again, this is not a question of anyone's ignorance, but of a clear difference in the understanding of sacraments. By the way, even between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, the understanding of sacraments is very different: a Latin priest, for example, says "I baptize you," while an Orthodox priest exclaims "The servant of God is baptized." Examples are numerous and are backed by extensive theological literature.

None of this, however, makes any one person or group bad, ignorant, shallow, or any number of other insensitive adjectives. A bad Orthodox still partakes of the Sacrament of Communion (perhaps, to his own damnation, like Judas) and a good Protestant who has no enemies still eats crackers and drinks juice. This does not make him somehow bad or ignorant. In fact, this Protestant may be a top-notch theologian--very educated and well-informed. And with the full force of his education and information, he still rejects sacraments!

I hope that this helps.

Fr. Sergei

D. W. Dickens

03-03-2009, 12:51 AM

I hope that this helps.
Fr. Sergei

It helps remind me that the internet has some great short-comings in communication that after all these years I continue to neglect.

I appreciate your clarifications on your points. I must say that you have moved our positions farther apart, rather than closer together. I had assumed a garden variety triumphalism. That's easier to manage than your clarification.

I do not expect to have any possibility of convincing you that your assumptions about motive are ill-founded. I've found that such assumptions are reasonably arrived at by personal experience and the implications of the "obvious" nature of one's own convictions.

I'm sorry that I contributed to this.

I can only testify that the motives of Orthodox and Protestant alike are more similar than we would like to admit, as are their relative behaviors. The difference is that the Orthodox have been given more (I certainly appreciate the wealth I have experienced since my conversion). Such gifts are terrible things.

David Newman

03-03-2009, 05:00 AM

The short answer is that they don't believe it was a "proper" baptism.

Beyond that, if they "re-baptize" someone already accepted into the Orthodox Church, there are many who believe they act outside of the Holy Tradition they claim to uphold. But if they require a full baptism for someone who was previously baptized in a heterodox church, they are well within their prerogatives.

Herman

I really wanted to start from scratch because there is a lot of confusing information on this thread. Herman, how do they decide what is proper baptism? And what divine authority do those people who "believe they act outside of Holy Tradition" have? Orthodoxy should not be a system of opinions and anarchy like Evangelicalism. Based on what I have learned from the Fathers, the practice of rebaptism is wrong. The Council of Arles (canon 8) specifically condemned this practice.

Kosta

03-03-2009, 08:22 AM

Herman Blaydoe

03-03-2009, 02:23 PM

I really wanted to start from scratch because there is a lot of confusing information on this thread. Herman, how do they decide what is proper baptism? And what divine authority do those people who "believe they act outside of Holy Tradition" have? Orthodoxy should not be a system of opinions and anarchy like Evangelicalism. Based on what I have learned from the Fathers, the practice of rebaptism is wrong. The Council of Arles (canon 8) specifically condemned this practice.

You are right, the practice of "re-baptism" is wrong. Nobody here will disagree. "I believe in ONE BAPTISM..." according to the Creed. However, we have not yet come to a conclusion on what a "proper" baptism is. If a "proper" baptism has not yet been received, then an Orthodox baptism is NOT a "re-baptism", is it?

There have been instances throughout history where certain people have taken it upon themselves to act outside the bounds of Holy Tradition. We see it in the Catholic Church where a bishop, in defiance of the Pope and the acknowledged teachings of the Catholic Church, has taken it upon himself to ordain women as priests. These things happen.

Certain Old Calendar followers have decided that reception of people by New Calendar churches has not been "proper", so they feel it necessary to make that reception proper with a full baptism. They do this on their own initiative. Some of them claim that the rest of us are no longer part of the Church because WE have departed from Holy Tradition. These people have set themselves up as their own authority and no longer answer to ours. People do that. The groups who do this are rather small enclaves. So whatcha gonna do? Send in the troops? We don't work that way. Bishops and priests who ARE under authority and might do this sort of thing are generally censured, then they run off and join one of the other groups.

The Holy Orthodox Church is not a system of opinions and anarchy. But neither is it a legalistic dictatorship where everything not compulsory is forbidden. We take an holistic approach, not a legalistic one.

What, exactly are you referring to when you use the term "proper baptism"? I think we need to nail that down before we define what is right or wrong. Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Vasiliki D.

07-03-2009, 01:33 AM

Interpretation and Applicationof Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos

(A contribution to the historico-canonical evaluation of the problem of the validity of Western baptism. Available as a 63 page e-Book, see link below)

Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople, 381a.d.

On how heretics are to be received:

Orthodoxy and Baptism

As for heretics who convert to Orthodoxy and join the por*tion of the saved, we receive them in accordance with the follow*ing procedure and custom: We receive Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians who call themselves Catharoi and Aristeroi, and Tessareskaidekatitae otherwise known as Tetraditae, and Apollinarists, when they submit written statements, and anathematize every heresy that does not believe as the holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church of God believes, and are first sealed with holy Myron on the forehead, and the eyes, and the nose, and the mouth, and the ears; and in sealing them we say: "Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit."

By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, D.Th., Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor, University of Athens

Source: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/dat/7E908E3C/file.zip?633719894895625000

Daniel Harrison

02-07-2009, 11:41 AM

You are right, the practice of "re-baptism" is wrong. Nobody here will disagree. "I believe in ONE BAPTISM..." according to the Creed. However, we have not yet come to a conclusion on what a "proper" baptism is. If a "proper" baptism has not yet been received, then an Orthodox baptism is NOT a "re-baptism", is it?

I will disagree. I refused to be received by Chrismation. I was "baptized" in by a protestant group, left and became Byzantine Catholic and was "chismated" Catholic, and when Converted to Holy Orthodoxy I was received by Holy Baptism in the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Heretical baptism have no grace therefore should not be recognized as a baptism.

M.C. Steenberg

02-07-2009, 01:32 PM

Dear Daniel,

I will disagree. I refused to be received by Chrismation. I was "baptized" in by a protestant group, left and became Byzantine Catholic and was "chismated" Catholic, and when Converted to Holy Orthodoxy I was received by Holy Baptism in the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Heretical baptism have no grace therefore should not be recognized as a baptism.

You seem to be seeking a somewhat provocative line; but in point of fact you've entirely agreed with, not disagreed with, the point Herman had made in his own comments.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Daniel Harrison

07-07-2009, 11:09 PM

Why Provocative?

Hieromonk Ambrose

07-03-2010, 03:03 AM

But if they require a full baptism for someone who was previously baptized in a heterodox church, they are well within their prerogatives.

And this is the official position of the Great Church of Constantinople.

The last official document from Constantinople on the question of Baptism for Roman Catholics and the diversity of practices on this point which is seen in the various local Orthodox Churches comes from the Patriarchal αnd Synodical Letter of 26 May 1875 from the Great Church of Constantinople.

It briefly mentions and describes the diversity of practices found in various Churches, some baptizing Catholics and some not, and Constantinople recommends that whatever practices the Local Churches have in place remain in place.

The document from Constantinople concludes: " Whenever, then, the local orthodox Churches might be able to gather together, then, with God's help, the desired agreement on this subject [of baptizing Roman Catholics] will take place, as with others [questions] as well."

Since this decision of the Great Church of Constantinople in 1875 no pan-Orthodox meeting has actually taken place to decide this question and the provisions of the Letter remain in force. i.e., let each Local Church decide its own position on baptizing Catholics, until a pan-Orthodox Synod will convene and make decisions.

Fr George Dragas makes an interesting comment on the decision from Constantinople:

"... the Holy Synod looks to the future for a unanimous Orthodox solution to the 'problem' of reception of cοnverts from the Western Church into Orthodoxy. Ι believe that the solution is already there. It is not uniformity, but the freedom, which characterizes the Orthodox position. Such position lays stress οn the act of the Holy Spirit who perfects (teleioi) in us all that the Lord has accomplished for us objectively."

More information on Myriobiblos, the e-text Library of the Church or Greece

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic_4.html#51_top

Christophoros

07-03-2010, 02:22 PM

And this is the official position of the Great Church of Constantinople.

Unfortunately, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has chosen to ignore its own previous canonical legislation on this matter, and has adopted the ecumenistic teaching that all those baptized by anyone in the name of the Holy Trinity, whether by aspersion, affusion, or immersion, is validly baptized.

Fortunately, the Church of Greece has not followed the "Great Church" down this path.

Hieromonk Ambrose

07-03-2010, 02:45 PM

Unfortunately, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has chosen to ignore its own previous canonical legislation on this matter, and has adopted the ecumenistic teaching that all those baptized by anyone in the name of the Holy Trinity, whether by aspersion, affusion, or immersion, is validly baptized.

While a preference for Chrismation is obvious in the West (as indeed it is in Russia) I am still aware of instances when Roman Catholics have been received into Orthodoxy within the Ecumenical Patriarchate by Baptism.

Of course the major spiritual centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the Holy Mountain and on that sacred peninsula converts are almost universally baptized. I say "almost" because I was speaking to a hierodeacon yesterday from Vatopedi and he says that the practice varies on the Holy Mountain, among the monasteries and skits and among the gerondas. Most will baptize but a signficant number will not.

Christophoros

07-03-2010, 03:05 PM

I think you have to place the practices of the Holy Mountain in a special class, outside the rest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I'm quite sure Patriarch Bartholomew would agree!

I know in the U.S., I was told by our local Greek Archdiocese pastor that a few years ago the archdiocese was going to great lengths to ensure all institutions were receiving mainstream Protestants and Roman Catholics by the same form (chrismation). This was supposedly the result of Elder Ephraim's monasteries following the general Athonite practice of baptizing all converts. A certain ROCOR protopresbyter pointed out on another discussion forum that these monasteries found a way around the directive without being blatantly disobedient: send converts to the local ROCOR parish for baptism.

Christophoros

07-03-2010, 03:27 PM

Mary

07-03-2010, 06:55 PM

While a preference for Chrismation is obvious in the West (as indeed it is in Russia) I am still aware of instances when Roman Catholics have been received into Orthodoxy within the Ecumenical Patriarchate by Baptism.

I would've been sorely disappointed and pained, if I hadn't been allowed to be baptized. I was given the option, since I was previously baptized 'in the name of the Trinity', etc. But, when everything I"d known and loved and lived for was being left behind, why hold on to my previous baptism, even if it was 'valid'? There is no fool-proof test to figure such things out. I was thankful that I had the option to choose.

in Christ,
mary

Anna Stickles

07-03-2010, 10:24 PM

I would've been sorely disappointed and pained, if I hadn't been allowed to be baptized. I was given the option, since I was previously baptized 'in the name of the Trinity', etc. But, when everything I"d known and loved and lived for was being left behind, why hold on to my previous baptism, even if it was 'valid'? There is no fool-proof test to figure such things out. I was thankful that I had the option to choose.

in Christ,
mary
Our entrance into Orthodoxy should not be a rejection of all that came before. We do not have to stop loving what we loved before. I do not have to give up my love for other children when I start having my own. I do not have to give up my love for my friends when I get married. We are called to love some things more without decreasing our love for others.

For those coming into the Church by Chrismation maybe this states a certain truth about the value and validity of our previous experience? Surely this previous experience must be transformed and made new in the Church, but if it is rejected entirely then this negates the opportunity to transform it. And it seems to me that some of those promoting universal re-baptizism are doing it precisely because they want to say that our whole previous experience is invalid.

I too, was baptized not chrismated, not because I chose - I am glad I didn't have to choose, but because our parish baptizes everyone who was not previously baptized in a sacramental tradition. (Michael was chrismated because he was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant) I guess the idea here is that of fullness, the Orthodox baptism it is not seen as a rejection of evangelical baptism or even really a replacement, but rather a fulfillment - an adding what was lacking - which is precisely the sacramental dimension.

Mary

07-03-2010, 10:46 PM

Anna, I agree with what your saying. Our past life is not rejected, it is transformed. All the things I was taught by my non-orthodox parents and my non-orthodox friends, are still with me, and they make me who I am, only, I see it all being refined and put in it's right place. However, I did not want to be the one to decide what parts of my past life are good to stay and which ones need to go. I wanted a fresh start, I wanted nothing from the past to hold me down. It was more a disposition of the heart rather than an actual cutting away from the past life. I did not disown my mother, and neither did I walk away from my husband and children. My friends from my past life, are still my friends, and in some way, I feel more connected to them, although orthodoxy has placed a chasm between us.

To be honest, I can't explain how I rejected my past. I just know that I did. But I recognize bits of it showing up again, in different ways. For instance, I learned from my parents how to be generous. It has never been hard for me to share. But now, I see another side of it. A virtue can be the fruit of my pride, or it can fuel my pride. Well... I have no idea where that will take me. That was a recent discovery. But, to tie it to the thought of rejecting the past - I have a choice of saying: "This is how my father taught me to give, and it is a good thing. This is the way I have to give. My life is meaningless if I cannot give like Dad did...." etc etc. Or maybe, I can learn to give in a new way, or at least, with my heart in the right place. This is not a judgment on my Dad's giving, just on my own. I've just become aware of how I myself give, and it isn't always good, that's all.

I dont' know if it connects in any way with a previous baptism, except maybe that, the 'rejection' of the previous baptism is more the 'rejection' of my past understanding of baptism. As a protestant, it meant nothing to me on a personal level - it was an opportunity to have the spot light on me, and show off my relationship with Christ. I was being a 'witness' of some sort, I think. Hogwash. I'm sorry. I can't believe I was so presumptuous. It's highly embarrassing. A baby that is being born has no thoughts of bearing witness to anything or showing off what it's got or impressing those waiting for it. It just gets born, and starts living. So, if Baptism is being born again, then there is nothing for me to do or know, but to just be born and start living.

So, I can see how it would make sense to receive by Chrismation, those who were baptized as infants. Babies are just not presumptuous. Thank God for babies, to teach us the right way to relate to Him!

in Christ,
mary

Herman Blaydoe

07-03-2010, 11:43 PM

Unfortunately, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has chosen to ignore its own previous canonical legislation on this matter, and has adopted the ecumenistic teaching that all those baptized by anyone in the name of the Holy Trinity, whether by aspersion, affusion, or immersion, is validly baptized.

Fortunately, the Church of Greece has not followed the "Great Church" down this path.

As I have explained several times in this thread alone, we do NOT recognize a previously received baptism as "valid". We don't do "valid", it is not a valid Orthodox term. We "correct" or "fulfill" a previously received baptism through Chrismation.

Herman the redundantly repetitive Pooh

Anna Stickles

08-03-2010, 02:45 AM

Mary, I understand what you are saying about the sorting out process that goes on and I can see where we are coming from a different experience. My previous baptism was very meaningful to me, and was a genuine point of conversion for me. Something real changed.

My baptism into the church wasn't meaningful so much in the sense of a personal conversion, but rather as an entrance into the Church. I am saying this really poorly, but don't know how to put it well.

I even remember taking communion in my little UM church growing up and what a special time that was, although after getting more into the evangelical movement where there was no sacramental or liturgical practice at all, and my faith becoming more intellectual I lost that. Now in Orthodoxy certainly communion is a very special time. So I guess my own experience makes me very reluctant to agree with any understanding of what it means to be received into the Church that attempts to define too exactly what the "underlying understanding of the status of non-Orthodox communities and their "sacraments" should be".

I am kind of wandering here and since we have already talked about the Orthodox sacraments fulfilling what came before rather then replacing them I guess I haven't needed to add my two sense. I guess my thought is that as soon as we try to define "what came before" too exactly we start getting into trouble. We are stuck having to judge and define a mystery. Never a good thing.

Here you and I are both coming out of a similar tradition and yet we see a lot of differences in how we interacted with that tradition and therefore how the Church's sacraments fulfilled that differently.

Father David Moser

08-03-2010, 03:01 AM

Christophoros

08-03-2010, 01:15 PM

As I have explained several times in this thread alone, we do NOT recognize a previously received baptism as "valid". We don't do "valid", it is not a valid Orthodox term. We "correct" or "fulfill" a previously received baptism through Chrismation.

Herman the redundantly repetitive Pooh

I agree with you, Herman, that this is what the Orthodox Church believes and teaches. HOWEVER and unfortunately, numerous bishops and clergy of the Greek Archdiocese (and the Ecumenical Patriarchate as a whole) have affirmed, over many years, that Roman Catholics and others have valid per se baptisms. This has been clearly documented elsewhere on the internet. In fact, the manual of canon law by Prof. Patsavos used at Holy Cross explicitly states on page 57: "The baptism of Roman Catholics is valid, and despite doctrinal differences existing with them, they have not been declared heretics..."

Christophoros

08-03-2010, 02:20 PM

Herman,

Are you aware of the following document found on the SCOBA website

( http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html )

which rejects the concept of oikonomia entirely as an 18th century innovation that is not the teaching of the Church?
It reached the following conclusions, which, I believe, both you and I will find troubling.

A. Conclusions

The "inconsistencies" to which we referred at the beginning of our second section turn out, on closer inspection, to be less significant than they might appear to be. Granted, a vocal minority in the Orthodox Church refuses to accord any validity to Catholic baptism, and thus continues to justify in theory (if less frequently in fact) the (re)baptism of converts from Catholicism. Against this one fact, however, we present the following considerations:

1. The Orthodox and Catholic churches both teach the same understanding of baptism. This identical teaching draws on the same sources in Scripture and Tradition, and it has not varied in any significant way from the very earliest witnesses to the faith up to the present day.

2. A central element in this single teaching is the conviction that baptism comes to us as God's gift in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. It is therefore not "of us," but from above. The Church does not simply require the practice of baptism; rather, baptism is the Church's foundation. It establishes the Church, which is also not "of us" but, as the body of Christ quickened by the Spirit, is the presence in this world of the world to come.

3. The fact that our churches share and practice this same faith and teaching requires that we recognize in each other the same baptism and thus also recognize in each other, however "imperfectly," the present reality of the same Church. By God's gift we are each, in St. Basil's words, "of the Church."

4. We find that this mutual recognition of the ecclesial reality of baptism, in spite of our divisions, is fully consistent with the perennial teaching of both churches. This teaching has been reaffirmed on many occasions. The formal expression of the recognition of Orthodox baptism has been constant in the teaching of the popes since the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was emphasized again at the Second Vatican Council. The Synods of Constantinople in 1484 and Moscow in 1667 testify to the implicit recognition of Catholic baptism by the Orthodox churches, and do so in a way fully in accord with the earlier teaching and practice of antiquity and the Byzantine era.

5. The influential theory of "sacramental economy" propounded in the Pedalion commentaries does not represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church; it is rather an eighteenth-century innovation motivated by the particular historical circumstances operative in those times. It is not the teaching of scripture, of most of the Fathers, or of later Byzantine canonists, nor is it the majority position of the Orthodox churches today.

6. Catholics in the present day who tax the Orthodox with sins against charity, and even with sacrilege, because of the practice of rebaptism should bear in mind that, while the rebaptism of Orthodox Christians was officially repudiated by Rome five hundred years ago, it nonetheless continued in some places well into the following century and occasionally was done, under the guise of "conditional baptism," up to our own times.

Anna Stickles

08-03-2010, 07:57 PM

Or to put it another way - we fill the previously empty ritual with grace and adopt it as our own.

Fr David Moser

So there is no grace outside the EOC? I thought that we taught that there is grace outside the EOC or else we could categorically say that no one not receiving the EOC sacraments is saved.

If there is grace at work outside the EOC, and it is a general spiritual principle that being made into the likeness of Christ is an avenue and an indication of grace, then one would think that the sacraments outside the EOC, in whatever closeness they attain to the Church, even if they are not complete, and even if they are affected by corruption, would not be mere empty ritual but would at least be a place where one would find vestiges of grace.

Maybe I am seeing your statement in terms of a black and white dichotomy that you are not meaning. I thought fullness meant some kind of relative amounts of grace outside the EOC but not the fullness of grace that exists here. But you seem to be saying that there is nothing outside the EOC?

I specify EOC here because we can say that there is grace outside the EOC, but I do not see how we can be theologically accurate and say that there is grace outside the Church. Grace and Truth come through Jesus Christ, and outside of Christ there is no grace. And from what I have read of the Father's writings the Church is nothing more nor less then Jesus Christ. It is just that we see the different degrees of this in this fallen reality where Christ is not yet all in all.

Mary

08-03-2010, 11:35 PM

Maybe I am seeing your statement in terms of a black and white dichotomy that you are not meaning. I thought fullness meant some kind of relative amounts of grace outside the EOC but not the fullness of grace that exists here. But you seem to be saying that there is nothing outside the EOC?

Sure there's grace outside the EOC. Because God is merciful. But, it's like the EOC has all of the million dollars. Outside the EOC, you may have no dollars, or 1 or 10 or even a 100. Being a protestant may be like having 10 dollars or even a 100. You're better off than the one who has none. But you're still a long way away from a million. The fact that you have a 100 is sort of negligible, compared to what you don't have.

In other words, protestantism is more empty ritual and less grace, while orthodoxy offers no empty ritual and all of the grace.

in Christ,
mary.

Anna Stickles

08-03-2010, 11:52 PM

In other words, protestantism is more empty ritual and less grace, while orthodoxy offers no empty ritual.

Yes.

I was thinking that one way we could say this is to say that Orthodoxy is completely within the Church, and that this is what we mean when we say that we are the Church, and that outside of Orthodoxy you have various degrees of participation in grace. We understand that there are various degrees of participation in God when it is applied to individuals, and I was thinking that in corporate terms there is a way to look at it wherein the same view applies.

Olga

08-03-2010, 11:53 PM

protestantism is more empty ritual and less grace, while orthodoxy offers no empty ritual and all of the grace.

Wise words indeed, Mary. For all the criticism of certain groups levelled at the "bells and smells" of Orthodoxy", I can conficently say that there is nothing accidental or random about any aspect of our faith. Everything has a meaning. Everything has a purpose.

Paul Cowan

09-03-2010, 01:52 AM

But, it's like the EOC has all of the million dollars.

So where is the line for a piece of THIS pie?

Herman Blaydoe

09-03-2010, 02:54 AM

Is there grace outside the EOC? We really can only witness to where we KNOW grace is and that is in the Church. For the Orthodox Church to "officially" say "you are probably fine right where you are" would be irresponsible at best. We can only witness that there is Grace here.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain

Herman the not so graceful Pooh

Mary

09-03-2010, 04:13 AM

So where is the line for a piece of THIS pie?

If you mean, who's on the inside, it would be all those who are baptised/chrismated into the church, and are accepted for communion. I think that's all there is to it.

Andreas Moran

09-03-2010, 09:25 AM

The situation in this life is one thing - that in the next is another. When the soul departs from this life and stands before Christ, does He ask, 'are you Orthodox?'

Father David Moser

09-03-2010, 04:42 PM

So there is no grace outside the EOC?

No, what I implied as that there are not grace filled sacraments outside the Church (specifically the Orthodox Church as she is the only true visible manifestation of the Church). Of course there is grace everywhere - the world (and anything in it) could not exist but for the grace of God, without the grace of God a man could not even reach out to God or conceive of God. Of course there is grace everywhere, however, the sacraments are only within the Church and everything else is an empty ritual and only the Church gives us the means by which to effectively utilize the grace that we are given to work out our salvation.

Fr David Moser

Father David Moser

09-03-2010, 04:45 PM

In other words, protestantism is more empty ritual and less grace, while orthodoxy offers no empty ritual and all of the grace.

Tread carefully here - this can easily be distorted and lead into the heresy of ecumenism (or denominationalism) that all religions (or all Christian religions) are right because we all worship the same God and that Orthodoxy is only the "most right". That is not the same as saying that Orthodox is the One Church and that there is no other.

Fr David Moser

Anna Stickles

09-03-2010, 11:19 PM

Tread carefully here - this can easily be distorted and lead into the heresy of ecumenism (or denominationalism) that all religions (or all Christian religions) are right because we all worship the same God and that Orthodoxy is only the "most right". That is not the same as saying that Orthodox is the One Church and that there is no other.

Fr David Moser

Well, I have read in several places by respected modern day elders that what we have is the fullness of the faith, not a monopoly on it. Simply because something can be distorted doesn't mean it's automatically false, and there is a distortion that reacts in fear to possible distortion, causing one to go to far to the opposite end of the pendulum. Neither Mary nor I are saying that all religions are right, nor are we simply saying that Orthodoxy is most right. What we are saying goes beyond this.

Where I think we differ is that you are making the EOC=The One Church. I see the EOC as being the only Christian tradition being fully within the One Church just as Mary and Olga affirmed. But The One Church as bigger then the EOC. If there is grace everywhere why should other tradition's sacraments be totally lacking grace? If there can be some amount of grace and truth in say Plato that ends up leading someone towards Christ, why not in something much closer to Orthodoxy?

But I suppose like every other controversy in the history of the Church, this too will end up getting defined over time and by the Church at large. It's beyond me to figure out. It is just, Fr David, that there are contraditions that make no sense to me in the position that you are holding.

I was just thinking that maybe my defintion of "sacrament" is a lot wider then yours. Which could be part of the difference.

Christophoros

10-03-2010, 12:28 AM

Andreas Moran

10-03-2010, 02:29 AM

I have to say that Anna's post does go against the grain of my understanding. I cannot accept the assertion that 'The One Church is bigger than the EOC'. But I don't see that saying that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that the Holy Spirit, Who is 'everywhere present and fills all things', goes where He will, are incompatible. But that does not entail accepting that the Holy Spirit effects Roman Catholic sacraments in the same way as He does Orthodox sacraments.

Mary

10-03-2010, 03:48 AM

Where I think we differ is that you are making the EOC=The One Church. I see the EOC as being the only Christian tradition being fully within the One Church just as Mary and Olga affirmed. But The One Church as bigger then the EOC. If there is grace everywhere why should other tradition's sacraments be totally lacking grace? If there can be some amount of grace and truth in say Plato that ends up leading someone towards Christ, why not in something much closer to Orthodoxy?

The problem with written language is that it sometimes gets too specific and sometimes gets too general. Oh well.

I did not at all mean that the One Church is bigger than the Orthodox Church. There is Only One True Church. It is the Orthodox Church. The reason there is grace outside of the Church, isn't because the church is scattered all over, but because God is merciful and not willing that any should perish. So, there is grace outside, to whet the appetite and increase the desire of those outside, for more of God. If they respond, they will begin to search for Him, and He will lead them to the One True Church.

John 10:16 - "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." Why gather them together, if the Church is bigger than what we see? There would be no need for 'one flock'.

I hope what I've said is clear. There is only One Church. There will always be Only One Church. Otherwise, our conversion is meaningless, too.

in Christ,
mary

Michael Stickles

10-03-2010, 04:39 AM

Herman Blaydoe

10-03-2010, 04:47 AM

What do we expect the "official" position of the Church to be? "It's all good"? Why not go and join the Bahai faith or the Universalists?

Again, why should the Church condone something that has not been revealed? Why shouldn't the Church simply testify to where the Spirit definitely is rather than riff on where the Spirit might be? Why would the Church insist on anything other than the undiluted Apostolic Witness? Anything else is going to be something less and why would the Church offer anything less?

Anywhere the Apostolic Witness is upheld, the Church rejoices. But where it falls short, shouldn't the Church point it out? Would anything less not be irresponsible? Was the Apostle Paul wrong to preach that we should be "of one mind"?

Herman the inquiring Pooh

Andreas Moran

10-03-2010, 10:30 AM

It seems to me that Anna's saying "the one Church is bigger than the EOC" is just a different way of expressing the point of Bishop Kallistos' statement "We can say where the Church is; we cannot say where she is not." It merely makes explicit what is implicit in his statement - namely, that the Church is in "places" other than the place we know, i.e. the visible Orthodox Church.

In Christ,
Michael

By 'Church', Metropolitan Kallistos (and presumably Khomiakov whom he quotes) must mean those who in some sense belong to Christ and receive His mercy, since Christ and His Church are one. It must mean those who are not sacramentally within the Church on earth but who, because of their disposition, are not estranged from Christ and attain to salvation. Love cannot be wasted simply because it is excercised outside the Orthodox Church. (Would that it were much more often excercised within it!) As the Metropolitan says, such things are 'known to God alone'. But, as Herman goes on to suggest, this does not mean that, so far as the Church on earth is concerned, the Church can overlook and be silent as to error where it perceives it.

I wonder if there is any patristic opinion on whether the souls of those who die not having been sacramentally within the Church are preached to by Christ (somewhat in the way that those in Hades were preached to during Holy and Great Saturday) and so have the opportunity to accept salvation?

Christophoros

10-03-2010, 02:08 PM

The term "Grace" is often misunderstood today. The Patristic teaching on the subject was best expressed by our Venerable Father Diadochus the God-bearer, Bishop of Photike in Epirus. As he writes in his Hundred Texts on Spiritual Knowledge and Discernment: "Before holy baptism Grace encourages the soul towards good from the outside, while Satan lurks in its depths, trying to block all the intellect's ways of approach to the divine. But from the moment we are reborn through Baptism, the demon is outside, Grace is within." And, in our own days, Blessed Archbishop Seraphim of Sophia writes concerning the two forms of Grace: "According to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, the Grace of the Holy Spirit is manifest in two forms: firstly, as an external, providential Grace, which acts in and throughout the lives of everybody, enabling anyone to accept the True Faith; and, secondly, as an internal, salvific Grace, which revivifies, redeems, and functions solely in the Orthodox Church." Here the Confession refers to the latter form of Grace. The general operation of the Holy Spirit among all men is not in question.

- Footnote 14, A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism found at:

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/FA9AF77F.en.aspx

Jason H.

10-03-2010, 04:06 PM

This does not pertain to "grace" but as to how we should consider those outside of the Church:

"We cannot say that their prayers are totally fruitless if they come from a pure heart, for 'in every nation he that feareth Him...is accepted with Him' (Acts 10:35). The Omnipresent Good Provider God is over them, and they are not deprived of God's mercies. They help to restrain moral looseness, vices, and crimes; and they oppose the spread of atheism. But all this does not give us grounds to consider them as belonging to the Church." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Pg. 249

Jason H.

10-03-2010, 04:56 PM

Ok now I have something to say about grace:

"Sometimes it signifies in general the mercy of God: God is 'the God of all Grace (1 Peter 5:10). In this, it's broadest menaing, Grace is God's goodwill to mean of worthy life in all ages of humanity...In the more precise meaning, the concept of Grace refers to the New Testament. First, by the Grace of God, the Grace of Christ, is to be understood the whole economy of our salvation, performed by the coming of the son of God to earth...'For by Grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast' (Eph. 2:8-9). Secondly, Grace is the name applied to the gifts of the Holy Spirit which have been sent down and are ebing sent sown tto the Church of Christ for the sanctification of its members, for their spiritual growth, and for the attainment by them of the kingdom of Heaven."
"The Apostles, therefore, in their writings often used the Greek word 'charis', 'Grace,' as identical in meaning with the word 'dynamis', 'power.' The term "Grace" in the sense of "power" given from above for holy life is found in many places of Apostolic epistles (II Peter 1:3, Rom. 5:2, Rom. 16:20, I Peter 5:12, II Peter 3:18, II Tim 2:1... The Lord 'said unto me, My Grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness' (II Cor. 12:9)."
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Pgs. 262-63

Evan

10-03-2010, 05:20 PM

Michael Stickles

10-03-2010, 10:43 PM

How can we affirm that the Church encompasses more than the Church that preserves the apostolic faith? Of course, the Holy Spirit goes where He wills, and strictly speaking everything would collapse if He did not work through and in it, and anybody who does anything good does it in the Spirit. But definitively declaring that we know there are people who are members of Christ's body despite not a.) knowing it or b.) believing and affirming what the apostles, saints, and martyrs believed? We can hope, certainly, but how can we state this as fact?

It seems to me that this works in the other direction as well. If we affirm that the Church encompasses nothing beyond the visible Orthodox Church, we are denying that anyone can possibly be a member of Christ's body except those found within her walls during their lifetimes. We can't hope because we've excluded the possibility. How can we state that as fact?

I admit to not getting what the issue is. To allow that there are some who spent their whole lives outside the walls of the Orthodox Church but are nevertheless part of "The Church", does not denigrate the importance of being in the Orthodox Church. Here, we know; out there, we don't. In the natural world, some people have survived being "run over" by tsunamis, F5 tornados and major hurricanes while unprotected and out in the open, but I dare say none of us - or them, for that matter - would therefore consider storm shelters to be unimportant. To me, that applies to the "storms of the passions" as well. Inside the Orthodox Church is a "safe haven"; out there, you take your chances, and personally I don't like the "odds" out there.

In Christ,
Michael

Evan

10-03-2010, 10:56 PM

Michael,

Why not leave it at, here, we know, out there, we don't? Instead of saying, out there, the Church is, or, out there, the Church is not?

Maybe that's what you're saying. But it seems to me that we're speculating if we say anything definitive about what happens out there. Reading Met. Kallistos' remarks, I don't see, as you seem to, an implicit assertion that the Church is "out there." I read them as asserting his own ignorance (no pejorative connotation intended) of what's happening out there, allowing the possibility but not "taking a stand."

I have trouble with the tornado shelter analogy precisely because we DO know for a fact that people have survived tornados despite not being in shelters at the time.

Perhaps the Fathers could be brought to bear on this issue? Do any of them affirm or deny that there are members of Christ's body on earth who affirm beliefs that they would consider heterodox, or even heretical? Who would not call themselves Christians? I simply don't know.

In Christ,
Evan

Michael Stickles

11-03-2010, 03:40 AM

Evan,

I think we just shifted gears, and there are assumptions inherent in your questions that I don't think are quite valid. However, I'm having trouble working out how to look at things to bridge the gap, so it's probably best left alone, especially since my own view probably suffers from the same problem. Leaving it at "we don't know" works fine, since I don't see much practical difference between "The Church is bigger than the EOC" (with the "where" left undefined) and "We don't know if the Church is bigger than the EOC", but both seem very different than "The Church is not bigger than the EOC".

As an aside, this whole issue, I think, is why the status of St. Isaac of Syria gets debated and discussed so much. Was he really Nestorian? Were his beliefs fully Orthodox? To what degree? Etcetera, etcetera. As a saint, he's definitely in the Church, yet in his life he was "outside the walls"; how we consider his status would inform how we view this issue. I think we've had already four or five threads dealing with him here on Monachos.

In Christ,
Michael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

11-03-2010, 03:05 PM

To clarify: the Holy Fathers categorically thought of the Orthodox Church as the Church. This is because it would have been contradictory to have thought otherwise since the very word Orthodox implies that this is the actual Body of Christ. Perhaps though where we are differing from them in our approach is that they most always looked at the Church in terms of how it is the life giving Body of Christ whereas we tend I think to look at what is 'life giving' in a different way.

Perhaps though this arises from the fact that we live in a world far more fragmented than the Fathers could ever have conceived of. After all the idea of varying realities all of equal worth is a very recent innovation among us and really amounts to a cultural revolution. For the Fathers the world they knew was also fragmented: but in the sense of each group having sole claim to truth. Here to change what church you were part of (or religion at times in Muslim areas) meant burning every bridge behind you and taking up the claims of the group you were now part of. And that was the basic situation until well into the 19thc- 20thc.

A more practical question however results from the fact that in this present day & fragmented world most all of us have non-Orthodox family, relatives & friends. Certainly this is a new situation and not one of our imagination. Certainly it needs an answer so as to respond with love but without adopting attitudes that corrode a fundamental understanding of what the Church is.

Here, I would say that it is better to refrain from following the pattern of 'we know where the Church is but we do not know where it is not'. For in effect this adopts an attitude very much at variance from the Holy Fathers who always based the claim of faith on the reality of the Church which precisely is known and continually referred to. We also must be very careful with 'we do not know where it is not' since actually it implies that the Church is also elsewhere- again something most contradictory to what the Fathers ever said or believed.

To get back to this last point however of trying to deal in love and integrity in terms of the Orthodox Church. I do not see a problem with simply acknowledging that God's grace works in all of creation. God works among men of good will (and bad will too). He responds to prayer and works through those means by which humans try to approach Him. There really is no need to deny this aspect of God's mercy.

However this is very different from what occurs within the Church. The word Orthodox after all exactly refers to the grace of His Body which allows its members to have continuity, to pursue in depth to its ultimate purpose, the mercy which He offers us. There is no other reason for which He became incarnate for our sake- and the Fathers were acutely aware of this. This again if we look at the evidence is continually what the Holy Fathers mean when they refer to the Orthodox Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Michael Stickles

11-03-2010, 04:35 PM

I think (as often happens) that a fair bit of the problem is in terminology (what we mean specifically by the words we say) and in focus (corporate vs. individual, temporal vs. eternal, and perhaps others).

Start with the statement "the Church is bigger than the EOC". In this statement, "EOC" is referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church as visibly apparent in history, and those who are in their lifetimes "within her walls" (whether by baptism, chrismation, catechumenate or affirmed "seeking").

"Church" refers to the Body of Christ, with the understanding that no one is saved outside the Church; to be saved is to be part of the Church, Christ's Body.

Thus, to say "the Church is bigger than the EOC" is simply to affirm that in the course of human history from the beginning of the church age through the Resurrection, the rolls of "the saved" will include one or more persons who were not, during their earthly lifetime, visibly united to the historical entity currently called the Eastern Orthodox Church (some of the interest in St. Isaac of Syria consists of arguing over whether he is a "proof case" of this).

Along those lines, to say "we know where the Church is; we do not know where she is not" is simply to say that we cannot point to any group, person or place and say "the possibility of salvation is excluded for all who are there, unless they visibly unite themselves in their lifetime to the visible, historical Orthodox Church".

Under those understandings of the words, to say "The One Church is exactly the Orthodox Church, and nothing beyond" is to affirm that all who are never visibly united to her during their lifetimes are, by definition, eternally condemned. And I think that affirmation is what is often being reacted against.

If those statements were intended in corporate terms, however - if "the Church is bigger than the EOC" meant that some other church was corporately a part of the One Church, or "we do not know where the Church is not" meant that some other church could possibly be part of the One Church - then they certainly would be rightly rejected. I wonder if that is the way those who disagree with those statements hear them.

In Christ,
Michael

Evan

11-03-2010, 04:48 PM

Michael,

It is this distinction you seem to be articulating, between the EOC as a visible, historical entity, and the Church as the Body of Christ, that I'm curious about. Namely, can we make such a distinction? Without getting into the issue of who is saved or not saved, do the Fathers make such a distinction between the visible EOC Church and the Church which is the Body of Christ? I have yet to see any evidence of this. I say this not to quarrel, but because I too am interested in how to respond to those who would ask whether there is an "invisible" Church that extends beyond the "visible" EOC. As I read Fr. Raphael's latest post, he seems to be saying that the answer we must give is "no."

In Christ,
Evan

PS: Given the terminological (is that a word?) issues that have surfaced, I realize it's possible that we're talking past each other. If I have misconstured your arguments, forgive me. May the Spirit unite us in one mind.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

11-03-2010, 05:32 PM

Dear Mike,

You wrote:

Start with the statement "the Church is bigger than the EOC". In this statement, "EOC" is referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church as visibly apparent in history, and those who are in their lifetimes "within her walls" (whether by baptism, chrismation, catechumenate or affirmed "seeking").

"Church" refers to the Body of Christ, with the understanding that no one is saved outside the Church; to be saved is to be part of the Church, Christ's Body.

There is a jump here in thought that the Fathers would not have made so easily. Categorically the Fathers do see the Orthodox Church as the one Church. The reason for this I explained above. Fundamental to this is how the Church according to their focus is always the life giving Body of Christ- but intrinsically connected to this is the fact that this Body could only be in conditions of a particular understanding of faithfulness to Christ's central message of salvation. This is what the word 'Orthodox' means. It is for this reason then that the Fathers would strongly have opposed the idea of 'the Church is bigger than the EO'. (although there is a nuance here that we need to be careful about in which 'EO' is not really what the Fathers mean by 'the Orthodox Church').

However from here to move onto the question of salvation is not really so clear. It is an obvious and continual point from the Fathers that just by being a member of the Church does not guarantee salvation- otherwise there would be no need for a message of continual effort. So salvation is not guaranteed. But on the other hand nor can we deny that ultimately all of creation is moving towards that reality as found now and foreshadowed within the Church. In that sense salvation can very well begin outside the Church but ultimately can never reach its true purpose and culmination outside of it.

This is why again we must be very careful here. The effort that we make towards charity is more than commendable- it is necessary if we are to acknowledge the Church's role as bringing life in Christ ultimately to the whole universe. But this precisely is why the Fathers were categorical about the exclusivity of the Church and where it is found- otherwise there really is no life to give on our part (remember it is not our life- it is Christ's which we attempt to offer) and no real salvation to offer the world.

However, to look at this from the negative direction instead of the positive and what the Church offers to all: If we do maintain that the Church is beyond the Church as we know it and beyond the Church that we are immediately grafted into sacramentally due to the issue of salvation- then the point we can reach and that is at least implied is that the Church itself is of no fundamental purpose. Human intent is what is crucial in attaining salvation rather than the Church. For we have moved outside of the reality of the Incarnation which is a specific and exclusive event.

Here is where I suspect that we have without realizing it turned around from how the Fathers see the Church. For their starting point is always from that reality which is the Church within which we find life; not from human intent no matter how genuine or good it is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Rick H.

11-03-2010, 05:58 PM

. . . a particular understanding of faithfulness to Christ's central message of salvation.

What a great series of posts! Thanks especially to Fr. R. and Michael.

This quote above by Fr. R. is huge in my mind as it relates to the recent turn this conversation has taken. I think if there is going to be any uniting of us in one mind, as Evan wrote, that it could come in the form of enlightenment through an expansion on what is said above, and a consideration of it.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

11-03-2010, 06:37 PM

Thanks for referring to the quote Rick. It's central to what I am trying to convey about the reality of the Church as the Fathers understand this.

For them the Church is always that central reality of Christ's Body which exclusively offers life to the world. Here human intention is important for it is our means of salvation. But yet this human intention is not the central point of the Church- Christ is- and we approach Him through our right faith- literally 'orthodoxy'.

Here I see a point that I had not noticed before about human intention and salvation. Let's say that we have been influenced by modern ways of looking at reality. Man is then defined as an individual set of intentions. To deny this is to deny man his worth as a human being.

It would seem then that the exclusive claim of the Church concerning the source of salvation is exactly what is at stake here. If the Church is this source then man's worth as an individual seems to be denied. Not only in regards to ourselves but also in regards to others whom we care about and love. The only way out of this is to see all as equally valid sources of truth and to thus broaden out the Church's claim about its own truth.

I would say that the challenge here is to entirely remove ourselves from this way of seeing reality. For we are not the sources of truth; nor does intent represent the fulfillment of our calling (at least in the eyes of the Church it does not). Rather Christ and the Church represent everything that we have and can gain. If we really see things in this way then everything falls into place including human intent. The Church is here; we're members of the Church now by choice; or we are members of the Church at some point in the future by choice. We will choose what we want.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Jason H.

11-03-2010, 07:43 PM

St. Irenaeus said, "We out not to seek among other the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Aposltes have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life."
Excerpt taken from St. Philaret's Catechism.

Andreas Moran

11-03-2010, 07:44 PM

Some of the points made in recent posts here remind me of the question that sometimes occurs to me: just what difference does being Orthodox make to what is, really, the only thing that matters - what happens to souls after death?

Richard A. Downing

11-03-2010, 10:00 PM

... the only thing that matters - what happens to souls after death?

Excuse me, I am unsure of myself here, but do we really believe this? My understanding is that the only thing that matters is that: 'thy Kingdom come'. But this may just be another way of saying it, although I don't think so.

True, I have turned to the Orthodox faith myself because I seek Theosis, and only The Church offers this understanding (recognising that at the moment my understanding is rather selfish).

But I was taken also by this from The letter to Diognetus ch6: "what the soul is to the body, that are Christians to the world". From the context it's clear that Mathetes means The Church, and our Liturgy.

If this is unhelpful, please ignore me (or correct me).

In Christ, Richard.

Rick H.

11-03-2010, 10:05 PM

Richard, Andreas can speak for himself (for sure!); but, what he has written most recently is in the context of this thread in its most recent turn . . . I don't think he would disagree with what you have shared. I might be wrong, but I think I can hear what he is saying in this question.

Andreas Moran

11-03-2010, 10:21 PM

Excuse me, I am unsure of myself here, but do we really believe this? My understanding is that the only thing that matters is that: 'thy Kingdom come'. But this may just be another way of saying it, although I don't think so.

I was thinking in the context of this life being essentially preparation for the next. This life is brief but eternity is . . . well, eternal. Being Orthodox is no passport to paradise; in fact, it places a great responsibility on one. We all accept that non-Orthodox and also non-Christians may not lose their reward. So, is there any sense in which being Orthodox gives a person some 'edge' over others in terms of salvation?

Richard A. Downing

11-03-2010, 10:31 PM

Thanks for the clarification. Now I am completely at ease with your expression. It was a long thread, and I have to admit I skipped a lot in catching up.
From what you say, being Orthodox may put one in greater jeopardy! (analogously to what St James c3v1 says about those who teach)

Richard.

Evan

11-03-2010, 11:04 PM

I was thinking in the context of this life being essentially preparation for the next. This life is brief but eternity is . . . well, eternal. Being Orthodox is no passport to paradise; in fact, it places a great responsibility on one. We all accept that non-Orthodox and also non-Christians may not lose their reward. So, is there any sense in which being Orthodox gives a person some 'edge' over others in terms of salvation?

I admit I'm new here, but to my mind, accepting that non-Orthodox and non-Christians may not lose their reward certainly doesn't "lessen" the reward, say, St. Seraphim received even in this earthly life, in which he experienced the very kingdom of heaven while yet in the flesh. We can at least say, we worship that which we know and experience here and now, as a pledge, foretaste, confirmation that Christ destroyed death by death and restored to life those who would receive it (that life which He is).

Further, if we're looking at this from the perspective of the final outcome, surely, it helps that participating in the life of the Church ensures that we live in expectation of the coming age and redeem the time cognizant that we will stand before the dread judgment seat. As opposed to, say, eating and drinking and being merry without a thought for being brought to account for our thoughts, words, and deeds. We know what is good and true and can identify it as such. We know what leads to death and what leads to life. We know the folly of the myriad doctrines of "the world." If we can nevertheless find ourselves cast into the outer darkness for neglecting truth and life and following Satan, surely it is more precarious to be ignorant of these things. Who would exchange the knowledge of Truth for ignorance, even if our responsibility and culpability is greater if we, knowing the truth, and He Who is Truth, fall into sin?

In Christ,
Evan

Father David Moser

12-03-2010, 02:21 AM

Thus, to say "the Church is bigger than the EOC" is simply to affirm that in the course of human history from the beginning of the church age through the Resurrection, the rolls of "the saved" will include one or more persons who were not, during their earthly lifetime, visibly united to the historical entity currently called the Eastern Orthodox Church

I think this is easily misunderstood in that those among "the saved" who were not during their lifetime visibly united to the Orthodox Church, were not part of the Church during their lives and if they are among the saved then God in His infinite mercy and love for mankind then united them to the Church after their earthly lives. They were not mystically or mysteriously or invisibly part of the Church until God placed them there by His sovereign power. Therefore it is certain to say that no one can be saved outside the visible, tangible Church - that is the Orthodox Church. If a person is united to the Church after their death then they are united to the those who labored within Orthodox Church in this life.

St Isaac the Syrian, is at best a "red herring" in this discussion as he was united to the visible Church in his time and place. The political status of the Church does not bring into question the fact that this was the Church (and again I think the work of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) makes this quite clear).

I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Fr Raphael in disliking the pop theology phrase "we know where the Church is but we don't know where she is not". I think that was an unfortunate turn of phrase that has been over quoted and misused and thus easily bends to drastic misinterpretation.

Fr David Moser

Fr David Moser

Anna Stickles

12-03-2010, 02:28 AM

I just want to say thank you very much for everyone who has contributed to this discussion. I have learned a lot and recognized many good points in what each person has said over the past couple of days.

Probably I have ended with more questions then I have begun with, but several important points have been made that I find worth mulling over in attempting to see more clearly how they fit together within the overall context of the Patristic witness.

For them the Church is always that central reality of Christ's Body which exclusively offers life to the world. Here human intention is important for it is our means of salvation. But yet this human intention is not the central point of the Church- Christ is- and we approach Him through our right faith- literally 'orthodoxy'.

Father Raphael has stressed in his posts how the Church is the source of life, and Richard mentions too how within the Church our view should not just be limited to the salvation of individual souls, but specifically as members of the Church we participate in the bringing in of the Kingdom, ie we participate in Christ's work of bringing life to the world.

Maybe if we go back to Mary's analogy of money we can say that the Church owns the printing presses but that the money itself does not stay within the bounds of the Church but is distributed to all. If we are merely seeing our work within the church as the saving of our own soul, as just recieving the money, we have not yet pursued in depth to its ultimate purpose, the mercy which He offers us, as Father Raphael states.

The Fathers teach us that our ultimate purpose is to be united to Christ in order to participate in what He is, and what He is doing. The first man became a living soul, but Christ is a life-giving spirit.

Within the saints, we see most clearly the manifestation of this life-giving minsitry, but I think, just as for the unworthy priest who yet can offer the sacrifce, still by our very participation in the services and sacraments we to some extent become means by which this salvation is offered to the world. Within the confines of the Church even our unworthy prayers take part in Christ's work. This is the incredible invitation we are given - to enter into Christ's saving work in His death and resurrection.

The second point that has come to mind is that of seeing the Church in terms of the incarnation. What I was missing at the begining of this discussion is that this source of life is incarnate, not merely spiritual - incarnate in the bishops and priesthood, Incarnate in the buildings dedicated by the bishops, incarnate in the services and incarnate ultimately in the Eucharist. It is losing this incarnate aspect of the Church where we can drift off into ecumenism, and I was probably drifting in this direction.

I appreciate both Fathers comments in pointing out a way to understand the salvation of the individual in relation to the Church. Even if the entire context is still pretty fuzzy. In a sense I guess this is related to how we as individual human beings relate to human nature as a resurrected reality in Christ, but I don't understand this either.

If a person is united to the Church after their death then they are united to the those who labored within Orthodox Church in this life.

But on the other hand nor can we deny that ultimately all of creation is moving towards that reality as found now and foreshadowed within the Church. In that sense salvation can very well begin outside the Church but ultimately can never reach its true purpose and culmination outside of it.

Anna Stickles

12-03-2010, 02:32 AM

For me he issue is more then simply wanting to know whether our non-orthodox relatives and friends have the possibility of being saved. I have on occasion the opportunity to talk to mature protestants who have their own relationship with Christ and a great deal of discernment and wisdom. I was talking with one friend recently and he commented to me

"I firmly believe assurance of salvation is a gift only for those who are in fellowship/union with Christ. If we are not deepening in our connection with Christ, we ought to question our salvation. I've seen too many people continue in sin and think they are fine because at some point in their life they made some kind of confession and were told they would be saved for eternity"

And what he says here about assurance is something I've seen echoed in the Orthodox literature.
In as much as a person's assurance is based on the reality of some level of union with Christ, then if we present a picture of the Church that denies this reality, we either will be rejected in our witness, or if accepted it can cause an incurable wound because what they have come to accept about their past is in conflict with the reality they know in their heart.

Admittedly, in as much as we are living in a false assurance there is the need for illusions to be stripped away so that repentance can clean our heart, but even this, if done prematurely, can cause defensiveness and hardness of heart rather then bring healing. And so even here a view of the Church that is too exclusive can bring hurt rather then help.

One of the reasons I keep coming back to this issue of trying to figure out how to present our understanding that we are The Church is that there are pastoral issues at stake in our presentation.

Obviously as others have mentioned at stake also is the very image and understanding of the One Holy Catholic Church Herself which we cannot distort simply for the sake of pastoral concerns. And in the end this wouldn't work, because it is Truth people are seeking and eventually they would recognize our distortion of it.

Michael Stickles

12-03-2010, 03:04 AM

Part of the problem in working through this is that so many of the statements seem to be able to be either true, partly true, or false depending on just how one understands what the words mean. And a slight change in nuance can make a big difference in understanding. And while I can't argue with Fr David's statement:

I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Fr Raphael in disliking the pop theology phrase "we know where the Church is but we don't know where she is not". I think that was an unfortunate turn of phrase that has been over quoted and misused and thus easily bends to drastic misinterpretation.

I think that "easily bends to drastic misinterpretation" unfortunately can apply to virtually anything said on this topic, due to the widely varying way the core words are used and understood. For example, in this statement Father David and I are (I think) in complete agreement:

...those among "the saved" who were not during their lifetime visibly united to the Orthodox Church, were not part of the Church during their lives and if they are among the saved then God in His infinite mercy and love for mankind then united them to the Church after their earthly lives. They were not mystically or mysteriously or invisibly part of the Church until God placed them there by His sovereign power.

But because of the way I normally understand the words, the next sentence seems initially to contradict what was just said:

Therefore it is certain to say that no one can be saved outside the visible, tangible Church - that is the Orthodox Church.

I have to completely shift viewpoint to understand "visible, tangible Church" in a way that lets this fit together with the previous statement. And this kind of thing seems to be the rule, not the exception, when discussing the nature of the exclusivity of the Church.

I'm very pleased, though, that in this thread we seem by God's grace to have avoided the "heat" which so often accompanies these discussions. May that continue.

In Christ,
Michael

Andreas Moran

12-03-2010, 09:15 AM

I admit I'm new here, but to my mind, accepting that non-Orthodox and non-Christians may not lose their reward certainly doesn't "lessen" the reward, say, St. Seraphim received even in this earthly life, in which he experienced the very kingdom of heaven while yet in the flesh. We can at least say, we worship that which we know and experience here and now, as a pledge, foretaste, confirmation that Christ destroyed death by death and restored to life those who would receive it (that life which He is).

Further, if we're looking at this from the perspective of the final outcome, surely, it helps that participating in the life of the Church ensures that we live in expectation of the coming age and redeem the time cognizant that we will stand before the dread judgment seat. As opposed to, say, eating and drinking and being merry without a thought for being brought to account for our thoughts, words, and deeds. We know what is good and true and can identify it as such. We know what leads to death and what leads to life. We know the folly of the myriad doctrines of "the world." If we can nevertheless find ourselves cast into the outer darkness for neglecting truth and life and following Satan, surely it is more precarious to be ignorant of these things. Who would exchange the knowledge of Truth for ignorance, even if our responsibility and culpability is greater if we, knowing the truth, and He Who is Truth, fall into sin?

In Christ,
Evan

So, if we are faithful to our faith, we Orthodox may indeed have salvation as our hope and our expectation beyond others. It occurs to me that the parables of the ten virgins and of the talents (Matthew 25) may have some bearing here. Few are of the measure of St Seraphim (five talents, definitely!), but in terms of our fidelity to Orthodoxy, if we do our best with the capacity that we have, then, though our best may seem to be much less in value than five talents, we may yet hear, 'Well done, good and faithful servant'.

Andreas Moran

12-03-2010, 09:33 AM

Part of the problem in working through this is that so many of the statements seem to be able to be either true, partly true, or false depending on just how one understands what the words mean. And a slight change in nuance can make a big difference in understanding. And while I can't argue with Fr David's statement:

I think that "easily bends to drastic misinterpretation" unfortunately can apply to virtually anything said on this topic, due to the widely varying way the core words are used and understood. For example, in this statement Father David and I are (I think) in complete agreement:

But because of the way I normally understand the words, the next sentence seems initially to contradict what was just said:

I have to completely shift viewpoint to understand "visible, tangible Church" in a way that lets this fit together with the previous statement. And this kind of thing seems to be the rule, not the exception, when discussing the nature of the exclusivity of the Church.

I'm very pleased, though, that in this thread we seem by God's grace to have avoided the "heat" which so often accompanies these discussions. May that continue.

In Christ,
Michael

First, I agree, as I am sure we all would, that 'sound bite' theology is to be avoided. Secondly, I wonder if what Father David says in the second quote given relates to what I wrote at the end of my post No 217? I think there is some patristic authority that relates to this but I cannot think where it is. Is the third quote from Father David inconsistent with the second? Not, I think, if, by 'Orthodox Church', we understand Christ's Church meaning that Church and Christ are one. To say that someone could be saved outside the Church would be like saying that he could be saved apart from Christ. Father David will correct me if I am wrong.

Michael Stickles

12-03-2010, 12:56 PM

First, I agree, as I am sure we all would, that 'sound bite' theology is to be avoided. Secondly, I wonder if what Father David says in the second quote given relates to what I wrote at the end of my post No 217? I think there is some patristic authority that relates to this but I cannot think where it is. Is the third quote from Father David inconsistent with the second? Not, I think, if, by 'Orthodox Church', we understand Christ's Church meaning that Church and Christ are one. To say that someone could be saved outside the Church would be like saying that he could be saved apart from Christ. Father David will correct me if I am wrong.

I was thinking more in terms of the "visible, tangible" part as what gave me problems initially; the inconsistency was only apparent, and went away when I shifted perspective to see the words differently than I would have used them (i.e., for someone to be united to the Church after death, to me does not equal being saved inside "the visible, tangible Church", at least as I normally think of those terms; but I wasn't thinking of them incarnationally, as Fr David appears to be, and thinking of them that way resolves the apparent contradiction). Sorry if I wasn't particularly clear on that.

The difficulties of understanding, and ease of misunderstanding, on issues like this help me to appreciate why the Ecumenical Councils argued so long and so hard over differences of a single letter!

In Christ,
Michael

Andreas Moran

12-03-2010, 01:56 PM

I had in mind that the Church is one, whether militant or triumphant. Perhaps Father David will help us by telling us what he means by the Church being 'visible' and 'tangible'. I assume it does not mean the Church as it is manifested by its sacraments on earth since then only those who participated in them could be saved.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-03-2010, 02:42 PM

Father David Moser wrote:

I think this is easily misunderstood in that those among "the saved" who were not during their lifetime visibly united to the Orthodox Church, were not part of the Church during their lives and if they are among the saved then God in His infinite mercy and love for mankind then united them to the Church after their earthly lives. They were not mystically or mysteriously or invisibly part of the Church until God placed them there by His sovereign power. Therefore it is certain to say that no one can be saved outside the visible, tangible Church - that is the Orthodox Church. If a person is united to the Church after their death then they are united to the those who labored within Orthodox Church in this life.

Thank you for pointing this out. I hadn't thought of it in such a clear way before. But I am sure this is correct. As I was saying yesterday- there is a real difference between human intention:all of those good impulses and efforts which we engage in as humans- and being a member of the Church. The former is obviously involved in being part of the latter (ie how can you really be part of the Church without good impulse and effort?). But yet at this point we certainly are not yet arrived at the Church; at best we are at the doorway. For the Church is necessarily related to the Body of the Incarnate Christ and to right understanding of this Body. Thus conscious decision to be part of this Body, to be a member of Christ's Body cannot be left out of the equation.

However here the unease of many as to what will occur with those who do not consciously believe or accept (or know of) the Church can be confidently addressed. The Church is not an organization among many others left to our individual choice. The Church actually and literally represents reality: within it we find reality because Christ is the beginning and end of all things. Contrarily, to be outside of this reality is to be not in an 'alternative reality' but to be approaching death, dissolution of what we are as created and human, and finally the hell of separation from the reality of Christ.

Before the culmination of all things in Christ however the time of ultimate choice concerning the Church has not yet arrived. Now the Church is a seed of love for the world, the seed which calls the world back to reality, 'what the soul is to the body, the Church is to the world' as the Letter to Diognetes has it. But not all know of or understand this yet. It is not yet that time of completion. So until then the Church brings life to the world, even though to a great degree others do not perceive it. But still we need to keep in mind that these others follow their impulses towards good or follow Christ as they can and this brings them to the doorways of the Church. At the culmination of all things (or perhaps this begins already after death) we should have confidence that these people who are our loved ones and friends will accept and walk into that same reality which is the Kingdom of the Church.

St Isaac the Syrian, is at best a "red herring" in this discussion as he was united to the visible Church in his time and place. The political status of the Church does not bring into question the fact that this was the Church (and again I think the work of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) makes this quite clear).

This also I think is a very important point. As we have been saying on another thread we always need to keep in mind the overall testimony of the Church: Her services, calendar, iconography, etc. Looked at in this way the fact that St Isaac is probably the only 'outside the bounds of the Orthodox Church' saint canonized by the Church tells us a lot. First that the visible boundaries of the Church do very much matter. And that here we have a truly exceptional case of someone who lived beyond the boundaries of his own church; beyond the boundaries of whatever limitation in theological expression or understanding that his church had. But to put it positively this is precisely what our Church recognized when he was accepted as a saint- that St Isaac already lived in that time beyond this when the true reality of the Church will appear until all. In other words St Isaac was one of those extreme exceptions who already lived in that reality which we hope and pray will occur for our own loved ones one day also.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-03-2010, 03:09 PM

Anna Stickles wrote:

by our very participation in the services and sacraments we to some extent become means by which this salvation is offered to the world. Within the confines of the Church even our unworthy prayers take part in Christ's work. This is the incredible invitation we are given - to enter into Christ's saving work in His death and resurrection.

This I think is very important. We need to get ourselves out of the mindset that salvation is only a reward (almost an award). It certainly has that aspect to it since what we receive from Christ is a gift that comes also from our participation.

But salvation is mainly life and literally a participation in the life of Christ. It has an aspect to it that not only saves us as individuals. Along with this our participation in Christ's life allows us to share in His work of restoring creation and humankind. Mainly this is done through the ways given us by the Church: prayer, asceticism, fasting, demanding services, self giving, humility, etc. These are the 'ortho-ways' which the Church gives us to give some peace to the world, to bind its wounds and put healing ointment on them.

This is why the Cross stands at the center of our Church before the resurrection. Through our participation in the death of Christ through the means just mentioned above resurrecting life is offered to the world.

But to repeat the point only through the means offered by the Church can this healing be offered; only by the 'ortho-means' is this offered. And only in the Church is this truly found and seen at work. It's evidence is right there to be seen in those who are living that life.

The direction of this salvation then is not just towards the individual although we as individuals are affected. Rather salvation precisely means that we grow from individuals being changed by Christ into individuals offering ourselves in Christ for the sake of the world. This I believe is the way in which the call of the Church is not exclusive of anyone.

In Christ- Fr Raphael