Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

thank you and one last point

Expand Messages
  • jechenaudrey
    Thank-you all for the informative answers and I just have one last point. According to this article on father alexander s site
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank-you all for the informative answers and I just have one
      last point. According to this article on father alexander's site
      the Holy Synod adopted a rigorous position on baptism of
      converts in 1971:(My question is: Has the synod reverted back to the
      less rigorous position in recent time or do individual bishops/priests
      always have the right to exercise economia at all times or am I
      mistaken in that THIS is the actual historical Russian position?)

      This decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad
      of 15/28 September 1971 reads:[105]

      "On the question of the baptism of heretics who accept Orthodoxy, the
      following decree was adopted: The Holy Church has believed from time
      immemorial that there can be only one true baptism, namely that which
      is performed in her bosom: 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism.' (Eph.
      4:5) In the Symbol of Faith there is also confessed 'one baptism,' and
      the 46th Canon of the Holy Apostles directs: 'A bishop or a presbyter
      who has accepted (i.e., acknowledges) the baptism or the sacrifice of
      heretics, we command to be deposed.'

      "However when the zeal of some heretics in their struggle against the
      Church diminished and when the question arose about a massive
      conversion to Orthodoxy, the Church, to facilitate their conversion,
      received them into her bosom by another rite. St Basil the Great in
      his First Canon, which was included in the canons of the Sixth
      Ecumenical Council, points to the existence of different practices for
      receiving heretics in different lands. He explains that any separation
      from the Church deprives one of grace and writes about the dissidents:
      'Even though the departure began through schism, however, those
      departing from the Church already lacked the grace of the Holy Spirit.
      The granting of grace has ceased because the lawful succession has
      been cut. Those who left first were consecrated by the Fathers and
      through the laying on of their hands had the spiritual gifts. But,
      they became laymen and had no power to baptize nor to ordain and could
      not transmit to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they
      themselves fell away. Therefore, the ancients ruled regarding those
      that were coming from schismatics to the Church as having been
      baptized by laymen, to be cleansed by the true baptism of the Church.'
      However, 'for the edification of many' St. Basil does not object to
      other rites for receiving the dissident Cathars in Asia. About the
      Encratites he writes, that 'this could be a hindrance to the general
      good order' and a different rite could be used, explaining this: 'But
      I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved, while I would raise
      fears in them concerning their baptism.'

      "Thus, St Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council,
      while establishing the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church
      there is no valid baptism, allows through pastoral condescension,
      called economy, the reception of some heretics and dissidents without
      a new baptism. On the basis of this principle the Ecumenical Councils
      allowed the reception of heretics by different rites, in response to
      the weakening of their hostility against the Orthodox Church.

      "The Kormchaya Kniga gives an explanation for this by Timothy of
      Alexandria. On the question 'Why do we not baptize heretics converting
      to the Catholic Church?' his response is: 'If this were so, a person
      would not quickly turn from heresy, not wanting to be shamed by
      receiving baptism (i.e., second baptism). However, the Holy Spirit
      would come through the laying on of hands and the prayer of the
      presbyter, as is witnessed in the Acts of the Apostles.'

      "With regard to Roman Catholics and those Protestants who claim to
      have preserved baptism as a sacrament (for example, the Lutherans). In
      Russia since the time of Peter I the practice was introduced of
      receiving them without baptism, through a renunciation of heresy and
      the chrismation of Protestants and unconfirmed Catholics. Before
      Peter, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In Greece, the practice has
      also varied, but after almost 300 years after a certain interruption,
      the practice of baptizing converts from Catholicism and Protestantism
      was reintroduced. Those received by any other way have (sometimes) not
      been recognized in Greece as Orthodox. In many cases such children of
      our Russian Church were not even admitted to Holy Communion.

      "Having in view this circumstance and also the current growth of the
      ecumenist heresy, which attempts to completely erase any difference
      between Orthodoxy and any heresy - so that the Moscow Patriarchate,
      notwithstanding the holy canons, has even issued a decree permitting
      Roman Catholics to receive communion (in certain cases) - the Sobor of
      Bishops acknowledges the need to introduce a stricter practice, i.e.,
      to baptize all heretics who come to the Church, and only because of
      special necessity and with permission of the bishop it is allowed,
      under the application of economy or pastoral condescension, to use a
      different method with respect to certain persons, i.e., the reception
      of Roman Catholics, and Protestants who perform baptism in the name of
      the Holy Trinity, by means of repudiation of heresy and Chrismation"
      ("Church Life," July-December 1971, pp. 52-54).
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.