Baptism of Converts

There is a pressing issue on how converts are to be received into the Church from various groups. The main area of varying opinion is the reception of converts who received a baptism in the name of the Trinity, especially from Anglicans or Roman Catholics. The seem to be two contrasting positions with those who insist on not rebaptising and those who do, e.g. Mt Athos. There is also a third position that allows for either approach: that is rebaptising is acceptable, and generally preferred, but not rebaptising may be acceptable as an economy provided certain conditions have been met.

Which position(s) conform to the Sacred Tradition? Looking through the debates and variety of views held in the early Church in which one party held that we should not rebaptise, St Stephen and St Leo the Great, Popes of Rome, and the other that we should, St Cyprian of Carthage and St Firmillian. St Basil the Great recommends maintaining the custom of the local Church but favours rebaptism and that the form of baptism be at least that of the Church in all points of faith. The Saints seem to contract themselves on a very serious matter. Is there a reconciliation of them or a common census to the matter by the Church? The answer is yes, although one that may not please those looking for a simple fixed approach.

Firstly, the Fathers accepted the Canon and hence arguments for St Cyprian of Carthage and thus rejected the argument of the Popes of Rome that insisted that the form of baptism must not be repeated because it can only be given once even though it does not confer any grace or salvation to those receiving the form outside the Church. The Fathers held that the one Baptism of the Church is the one conferred by a Priest of the Church not merely of the form. Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit and hence no Priesthood and so no baptism, that is no baptism that brings man to be a son of God. (Note: the dependance of baptism of the Priesthood; it is not a function of the laity.) Also, rejected by both St Cyprian and St Leo is any effect of baptism outside the Church, at best the baptism is an empty form and nothing more. There was no sense that a baptism outside the Church caused the baptised to be “born again” nor to receive forgiveness of sins. Such a view is heretical and a denial of the Church and the mystery of one baptism.

However, the Fathers did not accept the position of St Cyprian without qualification. The Church, i.e. Christ, permitted converts from some heresies to be received only with Chrismation, i.e. by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus, while the Fathers rejected that the form could not be repeated by the Church, they accepted that the form could be received by the Church without repetition in certain cases and for the matter of economy. This is the position of St Basil the Great. This meant that the practices of those would insisted on not rebaptising did not affect the souls of those being received by Chrismation only and also enable certain converts of certain groups to be accepted without baptism, where there could be uncertainty about who baptised them but they knew that they received the form of baptism.

Where does this leave us with the converts of today? Canonically, all converts need to be baptised if they are not within the excepted groups mentioned by the Fathers in the Canons. However, following St Basil there is room for economy to be used in particular cases, such for example the Roman Catholics and this economy was used by various Fathers at times. This economy though does depend on the form of baptism applied outside the Church to be the same as that of the Church and this is the major issue regarding the present forms of baptism used outside the Church, which are no longer exactly as the Church baptises. Although, there is still sufficient connection that the form could be accepted being done in the Church by economy.

Although, as stated earlier, things are a bit vague regarding the limits of economy, i.e. the meaning of the same in all aspects of the faith, it would seem that the best option is to baptise all converts, excepting perhaps those from Uniate or recent schisms, who have exactly the same form of baptism. There is some room for those who are obstinate about already receiving a baptism to be received by Chrismation but there should be no rule that all members of a particular group should not be baptised on entering the Church. Also, any acceptance of some effect of the baptism outside the Church, that is outside the jurisdictions of canonical Orthodox Bishops, as somehow giving the baptised some connection to the Church should be rejected. This was thoroughly rejected by St Cyprian, whose the Fathers in the Ecumenical Councils accepted. There is no Priesthood outside the Church and hence no baptism, apart from empty form and this has been the consistent teaching of the Fathers both Eastern and Western.

Liturgy – the moment of change

Here is an essay submitted for my Master’s degree about the moment of change in the Liturgy. I look forward to some comments.
Liturgy

Icons

Here is an essay about the theology of icons that may be of interest.

Icons

Canon Law – Can it change?

Here is a copy of a Canon Law essay that was recently submitted and received a distinction. It takes what may be described as a position of supporting an unchanging continuation of the Canons. This position is very hard to maintain due to the evidence. The relationship between the rhetoric of the Canons and the practical dealing with the Canons is difficult to reconcile. The essay is an attempt to substantiate the rhetoric more closely in trying to explain the practice in a manner that equates with the rhetoric of unchanging Canons. However, the marker found some of the arguments rather forced and unconvincing and even perhaps seemingly contradictory. Nevertheless, he commented that the essay does bring to the fore that the works of many modern writers on the subject have looked at the practice of change and from this have either dismissed or interpreted that rhetoric to make it of little effect and that this approach is not consistent with the tradition.

So, the essay is here, with its weaknesses, to provide some thoughts on the issues from a position seeking to remain faithful to the rhetoric by harmonising this with the historical practice. It is also a warning to those who hope or believe that another Ecumenical Council can make wide sweeping changes to the Church’s Canon Law or to its traditions.

I look forward to any comments or feedback to help develop understanding of these issues, which still require much theoretical work to come to a satisfactory answer.

Canon Law

Two Orthodoxies

I have thought to write this for a while but I have struggled to define what I understand as two diverging ways of thinking within the Orthodox Church today. These two streams are perhaps best illustrated with the Old Calendar schisms at perhaps one end, rather better to illustrate using the Monasteries on Mt Athos, and the in comparison the modern tendencies seen in some US and UK parishes.

Both groups claim a commitment to the Orthodox Faith and in some regard to Tradition. This latter point is where one can see the divergence most clearly; in how one regards the practice of Tradition and what they mean when they say “living Tradition”.

The best way of thinking about the motivation and mindset between the differences is rather more to do with the submission of the mind. Does one submit the mind to that of the Fathers and see and describe the world through their lenses, however, “out of touch” it may be with modern thinking or does one submit to modern thinking however “out of touch” it is with Patristic thinking (although this is rather a reinterpretation of the Fathers to fit with modern thinking by a process of accepting what is compatible and rejecting those parts not so by attributing them to cultural norms and influences of the Fathers’ time)? One in effect understands Tradition above time, place and culture and the other understands it as within culture and shaped by it. Both would argue that this is the mind of the Fathers and correctly corresponds with the Churches presence in the world: one tending to emphasise the eternal aspect and the other the historical.

Modern thinking has had a huge impact on Tradition and the work of many scholars has cut right to the root of Tradition and seemingly ripped the core out with their research and reinterpretation of history. The question is how are we to take this modern thinking. Do we accept it as being the most accurate because it is most up to date or do we ignore it as being of no importance or do we engage it and critique it? Many it would seem, especially among the intellectuals of Orthodoxy have accepted modern thinking and reworked Orthodoxy around this. Others have ignored it and continued with the Traditions such as some monks on Mt Athos. A few have tried to critique it in defence of traditional views.

While, I think that modern scholarship needs to be taken into account and addressed carefully, I would say that one needs great care before accepting it. That is because it is not based on submission to Tradition but one the research of those who are critical of Tradition, who do not approach Tradition with faith, whether inside or outside the Church. It is based on many modern humanistic assumptions that are not those of the Fathers nor of Christ. In fact most of those brought up with some from of Western based education are influenced by this, which makes accepting the thoughts of the Fathers very difficult. Such as how many of us would readily accept St Basil the Great’s instruction that it is best for a wife to stay with a husband who beats her? If one submits to the Father then one learns some important aspects of the mind of the Fathers and of the Church and would find themselves in reflection agreeing with St Basil because his teaching is in line with Orthodox Christian spirituality. I personally think that if one cannot accept his teaching then one has not yet understand nor obtained the Orthodox/Fathers/Christ’s mind, distinguishing between the principle and the application of this teaching to modern times.

I believe that the Orthodox path is first to submit to the Tradition and accept it as one’s own, as it is. Until such thinking is done, one cannot grasp the mind of the Fathers. Only then can we tailor Tradition to meet the modern world, so that it is preserved and not changed. Those who have submitted to modern thinking and try to fit Orthodoxy to this will go astray and change the Tradition without understanding it. There are many good questions raised by modern thinking that should not be ignored but these need to addressed from within Tradition in the terms of Tradition and not in the terms of modern thought.

Tradition is the Life of Christ expressed in the Church. It is Truth; a personal and living Truth that is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow because it is Christ Himself. Thus, where modern thinking is contrary to this it must be a lie and needs to be shown as such. Submitting to modern thinking first is do deny the continuing presence of Christ in the Church, His Body, and to submit to those of men. This way of thinking will lead Christianity to becoming another world religion and another social organisation that seeks the betterment of the world as an end in itself rather than seeking first the Kingdom of Heaven and then seeing the world confirmed to and transformed by this by being encompassed in it, that is the Church, which is in this world but not of it, while waiting for the final day when all things will be renewed. Modern thinking is becoming increasingly debased from the Gospel and hence increasingly “out of touch” with the Church. It is not Tradition that is “out of touch” because it is in touch with the True Life, Who is Christ, the world rather is moving further from Him and “out of touch” by rejecting His Life and substituting one of its own, which is bound to die because it is bound to this world of time and space.

Knowing God

This is a topic that in many ways I know very little about. I can claim no great spiritual heights nor theosis. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasing apparent to me what it means to know God and how this is achieved.

Knowing God is not an intellectual exercise nor even intellectual knowledge as such, although this is not excluded from participating in knowing God. This type of knowledge only grasps images and concepts about God but it cannot know God; this is something different. God is not a concept or image but a reality that it not containable in one’s mind. However, we do get to know God in a manner in what the Fathers call the nous. This is said but most to reside in the heart rather than the head. Thus, it is not a reasoning, intellectual knowledge such as mathematics but rather it is an experiential, intuative knowledge that is impossible to describe or compare to normal human experiences but has a little to do with wisdom.

God is known in the heart in the way that we participate in His life and this life becomes ours. We learn this initially through obedience to the commandments and then as we grow in virtue and purity through the participation in the Spirit. Eventually, we love as God loves, we think as God thinks and so thus we know Him because we realise that the way we live is how He lives. We share the same motivation, the same understanding and the same will; we want what He wants. This knowledge is in a sense active but it transcends physical activity and acts in a spiritual manner with far greater reach than of which physical human actions are capable. This knowledge is what is said to participate in God’s energies or operations. These are not something that happens to us from outside but come from within and become our own, yet remaining God’s and coming from Him. This is theosis or union with Him.

The above knowledge though is not that of the essence. We cannot attain to this that is because you have to be something to experience or know its essence. We can neither know the essence of a tree nor a dog because we are neither trees nor dogs. Thus, even though we are united to God in His life we will still know that He is somehow other to us and His essence is not ours. He is God and we are man. This cannot be changed. Nevertheless, by living His life we become gods because all of His life is ours, if we are willing to accept it as it really is.

Possession

Slavery is an anathema to modern man. The idea of being owned by another is abhorrent to us, especially those in western Europe with our cries of freedom. However, as Christians things are a little different. St John Chrysostom interprets that St Paul encourages slaves to remain as such even if given freedom because it benefits the soul. What a strange teaching to us. Why? Because we are free in Christ and slaves of Christ because He bought us with a price. We are His possession yet we are free from slavery to sin and the ways of this world. Whether in slavery or freedom we can be free as such.

We are possessed by Christ, we are no longer our own but His. Our bodies are His body and our lives are His. He does not take them forcefully but leaves it to us to freely surrender them but really we must do so because we are His. Also, wives own their husbands bodies and husbands their wives bodies. Again we are not free to use them as we will be as the other desires, except for time of prayer then the Lord’s possession takes first place but He does not prolong this overly least the partner is deprived of their possession.

We must learn to become free slaves of Christ and of husbands and wives. It is not for us to for our partners into this possession as Christ does not force us; it will be on their own head at judgement for failing to act as they should. Free slaves is an interesting paradox and that is why St John says that slaves should remain as they are because they freely choose their slavery then while they remain in the service of another the power of the slavery is broken in mind because it is a free gift to the master. We must willingly become slaves to Christ and remember that we are His not our own. We must not try to be selfish otherwise we will deny Him what is His and so lose what is ours in Him.

Let us then learn to serve others, to live in obedience to those with authority over us so that in freely doing we become free in Christ and free from the bondage of sin and the world.

Unity of Flesh

Although these ideas need more development, I am strongly growing in the thought that salvation requires complete unity in the Holy Trinity and this includes unity of flesh. We must be one flesh with the Trinity that is one flesh with the Son of God.

Flesh is something that both unites and divides. It unites all men coming from a common ancestor but it also divides being material and limited by time and space. In Christ, the unity is confirmed and the division overcome in His flesh for those united to Him and partaking of His flesh. For those not so partaking, although they remain united to the human race as such, they remain separated with the space/time bound flesh of death inherited from the fallen Adam. This body is not capable of sharing in the unity of the Trinity because it is a body divided. Only in Christ is one united again with both Christ and all others in Christ.

This need for physical unity in the flesh, as well as faith and love, is the reason for the necessity of the Mysteries, especially Baptism and the Eucharist, and the twin nature of the Mysteries being both material and spiritual. Unless one is born again in Baptism and partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ, one is not united with Christ in flesh and remains separate from Him regardless of how “holy” one is, although true holiness can only be found in Christ with participation in the Holy Spirit and deifying grace. The Church through this takes on a very physical presence and unity on earth as well as in heaven. It is a physical but spiritualised body, the Body of Christ, in each member and as a whole. Coming into the Church and participating in the Church as physical as well as spiritual events. The body participates in the spiritual life as well as the soul or intellect.

Even though the Mysteries are not merely physical but also spiritual, fulfilled in the Spirit, they are nevertheless physical. Connection to Christ and the Church must involve a physical connection, not just a spiritual one. There is no way around this without denying the physical nature of humanity and the need for physical unity. Salvation is not merely an individual exercise for those who believe and are holy but also a corporate exercise, one that involves being part of a Body, physically. The Sons of God were the family of descended from Seth, the holy line that in a way remained in Christ, the rest of humanity, the sons of men were separated from this. The family shared a physical unity. Later this family ending in Abraham was extended to a nation, Israel, the chosen people of God united in physical connection to the nation and in physical symbols of this. Salvation was with the Jews. Then in Christ, salvation was extended to all nations but only in Him, only in Baptism and in the Mysteries with those becoming one flesh, one Body with Him.

Our physical humanity at once is a burden of separation, we must physically get to the Church, but it also opens a unity with God in Christ and a unity with the whole of creation that can only come through this physically humanity which is spiritualised in Christ, transcending itself while remaining itself.

Epiclesis

Regarding the Epiclesis,

From my reading its seems that the West did have an Epiclesis but about the Fifth Century it was moved, and perhaps split up, to before the Words of Institution, in line with the Western emphasis.

“Veni, Sanctificator omnipotens aeterne Deus. et bene dic hoc sacrificum tuo sancto nomini praeparatum.”

“Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Your holy Name.”

“Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris,. ut nobis Corpus, et Sanguis fiatdilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.”

“O God, deign to bless + what we offer, and make it approved, + effective, + right, + and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may become for our good, the Body + and Blood + of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

There is no sense that the Spirit’s blessing of the Gifts is not still required in the Roman rite but only it is not directly invoked at particular point after the Words of Institution, as it is in Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Also, in the West the Liturgical action, according to Nicholas Cabasilas, was not complete until after the prayer:

“Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus, jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu dininae majertatis tuae: ut quoquot ex hac altaris participatione, sacrocanctum Filii tui Corpus, et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione coelesti et gratia repleamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.”

“Most humbly we implore You, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your Holy Angel to Your altar above, before the face of Your Divine Majesty. And may those of us who by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing, Through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

He considered this to be the “Epiclesis” and from it that the Latins were incorrect to consider the change complete before this time, otherwise there would not be an imploring for God to accept the offerings to be brought to the Altar, which would be tantamount to blasphemy because they would already be so, being the Body and Blood of the Lord already accepted. This prayer is in contrast to a similar prayer in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom that presupposes the change of the Gifts before the prayer:

“Ὑπὲρ τῶν προσκομισθέντων καὶ ἁγιασθέντων τιμίων Δώρων, τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.

Ὅπως ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ προσδεξάμενος αὐτὰ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὑπερουράνιον καὶ νοερὸν αὐτοῦ θυσιαστήριον, εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας πνευματικῆς, ἀντικαταπέμψῃ ἡμῖν τὴν θείαν χάριν καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, δεηθῶμεν.”

“For the precious Gifts, which have been spread forth and sanctified, let us pray to the Lord.

That our God, who loveth mankind, receiving them upon His holy, most heavenly, and noetic Altar as a savour of spiritual sweetness, will send down upon us in return His divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit, let us pray.”

This prayer is reflected earlier in the service for the preparation of the Gifts:

‘Αὐτὸς εὐλόγησον τὴν Πρόθεσιν ταύτην καὶ πρόσδεξαι αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσιαστήριον.”

“…Do Thou Thyself bless this oblation, and receive it upon Thy most heavenly Altar…”

which is much in line with the prayers in the Roman rite.

Thus, the two rites are very similar and the anaphora properly concludes with a prayer after the Words of Institution. The Roman rite in this is not different from that of Constantinople and the issue is not so much the words of the rite but the interpretation.

Note: I am opposed to any artificial inclusion of an Epiclesis in the Roman rite as used in Western Rite Orthodox Churches, because of the above.

Thought on post on CathedraUnitatis regarding St Nicodemos

Regarding depositions, I am much in support that one jurisdiction should not accept as clergy those defrocked by another jurisdiction. However, there is an exception to this if the defrockings can be shown to be unjustified or based on erroneous reasons. This requires the proper investigation of a council. The case of the Antichocian Priests may come into this. However, I get rather upset when a jurisdiction that recognises another as valid accepts a Priest who was defrocked for immorality or clear schism. This does no good whatever to harmony and respect.

Some Old Calendar groups denying grace in “mainstream” Orthodox jurisdictions are free to do as they please because they do not see a valid ordination anyway. Nevertheless, some candidates that seem to have made their way into these bodies are of dubious quality and don’t add credit to these bodies; not to say that all clergy in mainstream Churches are beyond dubiousness.

Within Orthodoxy there seem to be two developing camps in the Church regarding relations with other churches and the opinions dividing these camps are reflected on their attitudes to receiving converts, especially from Roman Catholicism and these camps focus on what are acceptable rites rather than on error or validity per say. Those who see the Roman Church as being a genuine Sister Church should not accept converts but rather encourage people to stay with their own pastors and should be opposed to the Orthodox presence in Western countries anyway to even permit free attending; on this reasoning Eastern Churches have no place in the west unless one does so for ethic reasons but these parishes should still be under western Bishops. Most Orthodox Churches in the West do not officially fall into this category and this presupposes that the Roman Church or other western churches are not legitimate churches but rather in error. Whether this error only requires confession or whether it requires baptism is another issue. Even though only chrism and confession is permitted by conciliar decision in the US, such a position is considered erroneous on Mt Athos, who see it as endangering souls who have not been baptised in a manner acceptable to the Church. I understand the main Orthodox issue being that the Roman form of baptism is not baptism but sometime different and as such cannot have any validity at the time of application or upon reception into the Church. Even if it was accepted earlier, possible recent changes, if any have been made, could invalidate it. This takes constant vigilance on the part of the Church and the reception of converts can be modified if the practices of other communities change. (The theory is the same for all Orthodox but the line of acceptability for some is application of water in the name of the Trinity and for others immersion (or as close as possible to it) in water in the name of the Trinity. It is the way water is applied that is at issue and not whether baptism in itself is acceptable (either outside or on reception) or whether Roman Catholics are in error, which reception of converts other than directly communing presupposes. Everyone would agree that if Roman Catholics stopped using the name of the Trinity, water or baptism although then they could not be accepted without Baptism, even if all else remains equal. The affect of the rite of Baptism (or its validity) outside the Church is another matter than how to receive converts. For this the rite used is the essential matter.

The influence of or reaction to western churches/thinking has also played a large part in the way baptism was received. It takes quite a bit to unpack all these influences and to extract legitimate practice from that which was mistaken; not to re-mention the strong evidence of the legitimacy of different practices.

Note: it seems strange to me that people accept the judgement of the neophyte Orthodox churches in the US rather than the judgement of the centuries old centre of Orthodox spirituality on Mt Athos and consider these monks as “ultra-traditionalists” misguided by a Saint named Nicodemos. Hmm…

Regarding valid and not valid, I think that only a distinction between ritual form and Spiritual transformation of a Mystery can help in this matter, such as without the Spirit transforming the gifts on the Holy Table they would remain only bread and wine even if the service is done in all other respects validly. Does the performance of the ritual of itself force the Spirit to transform it to its spiritual reality or is He free to transform only those performed legitimately within the Church? (Perhaps the whole circumstances of the ritual, in deed and thought, will be honoured by the Spirit without fail, including not only the immediate rite but also the canonical/creedal position of the Priest and the local Church within which he serves.) I think that there may be a valid form but an invalid Mystery because it is not transformed by the Spirit. The need of Chrism for converts supports this idea because it implies the absence, in Mystical/Sacramental terms, of the Holy Spirit. The question is whether the form can be transformed at a different time to its application.