OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 02:57:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do Orthodox Rebaptize Trinitarian Christians?
Yes - 9 (37.5%)
No - 11 (45.8%)
I don't know - 4 (16.7%)
Total Voters: 24

Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do Orthodox Rebaptize Trinitarian Christians?  (Read 6597 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« on: December 11, 2009, 12:41:10 AM »

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants.  In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.  

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.  

K

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2009, 12:49:25 AM »

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants.  In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.  

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.  

K



We don't recognize Pastor Aeternas, remember?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2009, 12:58:38 AM »

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants.  In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.  

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

It's quite simple really. The practice of the Orthodox Church is to baptise those who wish to enter into the Church. However, it is permissible to receive heretics whose baptismal form is orthodox (i.e. in the Name of the Trinity - the Didache permits sprinkling as an exception to the rule) by Chrismation where this is considered necessary or expedient. The decision of whether or not to apply economia lies with the bishop under whom you are received, and some bishops apply it more liberally than others - hence the differences between the various Patriarchates.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2009, 01:11:57 AM »

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants.

All Orthodox Churches can, and do, baptize converts.   It has become less common in the US but the option for baptism is still there.

Quote
  In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.

I am reminded of an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself (Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So, what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

Quote
Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

Neither did Saint Cyprian and the Church of North Africa accept the ruling of the Pope.

Here is a basic introduction to the difference between Augustinian theology (Pope Stephen) on the existence of sacraments outside the Church and the theology of Saint Cyprian which prevailed in the East and at the Ecumenical Councils.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13357.msg185268.html#msg185268
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2009, 01:43:32 AM »

At present the Othodox Church seems uncertain on whether or not to re-baptize Trinitarian Christians such as Protestants.  In the past it demanded even Anglicans to be rebaptized, which is one reason why William Palmer, the 19th cent. erudite philo-Orthodox Anglican chose Rome over Orthodoxy.  

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.  

K

You do realize that Orthodoxy thinks St. Cyprian won that dispute? The canon from St. Cyprian's council of Carthage was received as authoritative by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. As was St. Basil's First Canonical Letter which adds some theological nuance and explains under what conditions the Church can pastorally bend the rules to receive some by chrismation or confession only--but starts with the assumed proposition that 'properly speaking, everyone (schismatic or heretic) should be received with baptism'.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2009, 05:50:11 AM »

It's my understanding that most of the Holy Orthodox Churches do baptize those Christians from other confessions, who seek conversion to Orthodoxy and had received a Trinitarian baptism with water. It is a practice that has varied over the centuries, especially in Russia, as I recall.  For some reason, I don't think the Ecumenical Patriarchate, except Mt. Athos, and Patmos I'd guess, baptizes those who had received a Trinitarian baptism by sprinkling.  In the Western Hemisphere, most, if not all of the SCOBA jurisdictions, accept Trinitarian baptisms from Christian denominations, which is considered an acceptance by "economy."
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,858



« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2009, 06:08:37 AM »

Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.

Did he? Where? Do you have a specific quote from His Holiness where he says that a baptism outside of the Church confers the grace of baptism? I've heard several times that according to St. Augustine a non-Orthodox baptisms are valid and that they confer the grace of baptism but I've never seen quotes to prove that. On the other if I remember correctly he says in his book about baptism that a Heterodox baptism do not confer grace. Since the dispute about validity of a Heterodox baptism seems to be quite ambivalent I'd like to see some specific quotes from Pope Stephen (and. St. Augustine for that matter if he accepts validity of Heterodox baptism somewhere).
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 06:09:07 AM by Alpo » Logged

Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2009, 07:03:44 AM »

The necessity of re-baptism for converts is approached on a case by case basis.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2009, 07:52:13 AM »

The necessity of re-baptism for converts is approached on a case by case basis.
But "re-baptism" implies a second baptism. No one can be "re-baptised", because we believe "in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2009, 10:04:35 AM »

The necessity of re-baptism for converts is approached on a case by case basis.
But "re-baptism" implies a second baptism. No one can be "re-baptised", because we believe "in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin".
Right. My priest put it this way: "We don't know whether your baptism was valid, so we'll perform a baptism. If your Protestant baptism was invalid, then this one counts; but if your Protestant baptism was valid, then all we've done is given you a bath."
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2009, 10:14:50 PM »

Irish Hermit said:
Quote
Neither did Saint Cyprian and the Church of North Africa accept the ruling of the Pope.

Who wins out?  Alpo, Pope Stephen II's view was solidified in the Council of Arles in 314, Cyprian's in the Council of Carthage, though Witega, you say Cyprian's view was solidified in the 7th Ecumenical Council, so that would seem to win out, correct? 

Also Witega, in regards to your desire to be shown a case where a person changes his view because he was found to be at odds with Rome:
1) Are we sure Cyprian didn't submit to Rome?  (Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" says Cyprian appears to have accepted Stephens position on baptism. p181)  Though he does not say why he believes this.

2) Same book p200: In regards to defending Athanasius: "When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed their crime...and sought forgiveness from Julius Bishop of ancient Rome."

Finally, Irish Hermit, interesting link, but not sure Neil's view is accurate.  A Roman Catholic priest loses his power to perform sacraments if he is cut off from Rome.  In any case, Khomiakov, the 19th cent. Russian Orthodox theologian says any Christian can validly baptize if they do so in the Trinitarian format, so this would support Stephen II/Council of Arles' view.  (On Spiritual Unity p42).

K
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2009, 10:45:32 PM »

Finally, Irish Hermit, interesting link, but not sure Neil's view is accurate.  A Roman Catholic priest loses his power to perform sacraments if he is cut off from Rome. 

Never heard that before.  The power of the sphragis and all that
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2009, 10:51:56 PM »

Irish Hermit said:
Quote
Neither did Saint Cyprian and the Church of North Africa accept the ruling of the Pope.

Who wins out?  Alpo, Pope Stephen II's view was solidified in the Council of Arles in 314, Cyprian's in the Council of Carthage, though Witega, you say Cyprian's view was solidified in the 7th Ecumenical Council, so that would seem to win out, correct?  

Also Witega, in regards to your desire to be shown a case where a person changes his view because he was found to be at odds with Rome:
1) Are we sure Cyprian didn't submit to Rome?  (Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" says Cyprian appears to have accepted Stephens position on baptism. p181)  Though he does not say why he believes this.

2) Same book p200: In regards to defending Athanasius: "When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed their crime...and sought forgiveness from Julius Bishop of ancient Rome."

Finally, Irish Hermit, interesting link, but not sure Neil's view is accurate.  A Roman Catholic priest loses his power to perform sacraments if he is cut off from Rome.  In any case, Khomiakov, the 19th cent. Russian Orthodox theologian says any Christian can validly baptize if they do so in the Trinitarian format, so this would support Stephen II/Council of Arles' view.  (On Spiritual Unity p42).

K

Kaste,

You are approaching this all wrong. You want one Orthodox document giving a definitive view on baptism of converts. Ain't gonna happen.

If you're looking for organized religion, Orthodoxy is the wrong faith for you. Wink

It is up to the discretion of the local Bishop whether to baptise and chrismate the convert, or to accept their baptism via economia through chrismation.

My suggestion? Stop reading and start attending an Orthodox church and learn about Orthodoxy under the guidance of a priest who can put everything in the right context for you.

I get the impression from your posts that you've read some stuff, and now you're going to come on here and tell us how it should be. Or you're going to do an expose on Orthodoxy.

We've been around for 2000+ years my friend. There's nothing new under the sun that you're going to bring up that hasn't been brought up before.

God bless you on your journey.

In XC,

Maureen
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 10:52:45 PM by HandmaidenofGod » Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2009, 12:31:18 AM »

I think my jurisdiction usually receives all adult converts into the faith by baptism and chrismation. I had been previously baptised  as a Trinitarian Christian upon my confession of faith, but was baptised when received into the Orthodox Church. I consider the Orthodox baptism to be the valid one. It was very special and moving to be immersed. I don't think you'd want to miss out on that.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 12:31:57 AM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2009, 12:56:42 AM »

My suggestion? Stop reading and start attending an Orthodox church and learn about Orthodoxy under the guidance of a priest who can put everything in the right context for you.

I get the impression from your posts that you've read some stuff, and now you're going to come on here and tell us how it should be. Or you're going to do an expose on Orthodoxy.

I believe in another thread he mentioned that he used to be a catechumen in the Greek church.
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2009, 01:19:57 AM »

I was baptized Catholic and was recieved by Chrismation. It really depends on what one jurisdiction says.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2009, 01:32:02 AM »

If you're looking for organized religion, Orthodoxy is the wrong faith for you.
Priceless! This one's going into the OCnet quotable quotes!
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 01:38:20 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2009, 02:53:25 AM »

If you're looking for organized religion, Orthodoxy is the wrong faith for you.
Priceless! This one's going into the OCnet quotable quotes!

There's a bumper sticker:

"Orthodoxy:  Disorganised religion at its finest"
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2009, 03:15:02 AM »

1) Are we sure Cyprian didn't submit to Rome?  (Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" says Cyprian appears to have accepted Stephens position on baptism. p181)  Though he does not say why he believes this.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
In Vol. 14 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, you can find the text of the Council of Carthage held under Cyprian, the First Canonical epistle of St. Basil, Canon II of the Quinsext Council where both were included in the universal canons of the Church, and Canon I of the 7th Ecumenical Council which confirmed the Quinsext's canonical authority are all easily accessible.

On the same page, you can access Vol. 5 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers which has the extant writings of St. Cyprian.

Since Stephen Ray doesn't give his reason, it's rather hard to address his odd claim. The 'standard' history of the controversy (found even in the Catholic Encyclopedia's account--see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) is that it ended when Pope Stephen was martyred (becoming St. Stephen) and his successor ceased pressing the issue. Rome continued with its practice, Carthage and the East continued with its practice, culminating in the Ecumenical canons above. There is certainly no record of Cyprian ever renouncing or holding another council to revoke the canon established by 318 fathers at Carthage.

Given the above, I have little impulse to treat additional information from Ray as any more historically accurate. But even setting that aside, you're quote doesn't have enough context to mean anything. It says "When Ursacius and Valens saw all this". What is "all this"? That a person who was repenting or trying to rejoin the Church after separating would go to an authoritative figure (and no one questions that the Popes of Rome where the most prestigious bishops of the Church) to have that repentence recognized and the schism healed would not be surprising. But the question at hand is not what they did once they repented, but what caused the repentance? The papal claim is that the bishop of Rome holds some kind of unique postion such that being in communion with him is an absolute necessity. However, the actual practice in the first millenium is that when someone thinks the bishop of Rome is wrong, they behave as though fidelity to the right is more important than communion with (much less submission to) Rome. Your example might be the first exception anyone has presented to that rule from the first 7 centuries, but that's only if "When Ursacius and Valens saw all this" means "When Ursacius and Valens saw that they were out of line with the Pope." (and only if its actually a verifiable event unlike the claim about St. Cyprian).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2009, 03:51:26 AM »


Pope Stephen II had already settled this with Cyprian, but apparently some Orthodox do not recognize his ruling.  


The Orthodox position is well expressed in the Canons of Saint Basil
which were incorporated into one of the Ecumenical Councils.

[Question, whey didn't the Church of Rome accept the teaching of
an Ecumenical Council?  Why did it keep on with Saint Stephen's view on baptism?]



Here is a patristic viewpoint -from Saint Basil the Great. Notice the typical
balance of the Church Fathers - while the principle of no Sacraments and no
Apostolic Succession outside the Church is clearly enunciated, Saint Basil also
states very clearly that for the sake of the good of the Church "economy" may be
used if it is thought necessary in the case of Baptism.


Epistle to Amphilochius (of which the "First Canon" of Saint Basil is a shorter
version)

---- "It seemed best to the ancients-I refer to Cyprian and our own
Firmilian-to subject all of these (Cathari, and Encratites, and Hydroparastatae)
to one vote of condemnation, because the beginning of this separation arose
through schism, and those who had broken away from the Church no longer had in
them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the imparting of it failed because of the
severance of continuity.

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and
through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but those
who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing
nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy
Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away.
Therefore they commanded
those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the
Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church.

"But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia
that, by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it be
accepted."

Note the word "economy" used here by Saint Basil with reference to situations
when baptism is not insisted upon. Saint Athanasius also uses the word economy
with reference to the reception of heretics. Some modern theologians are
pushing the line that the concept of "economy" is an innovation fostered by
Saint Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain but here we see Saint Basil employing the
concept back in the 4th century.

Fr Ambrose

Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,168


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2009, 04:37:12 AM »

If you're looking for organized religion, Orthodoxy is the wrong faith for you.
Priceless! This one's going into the OCnet quotable quotes!

There's a bumper sticker:

"Orthodoxy:  Disorganised religion at its finest"

... must be from the Onion Dome store ...  laugh laugh
Logged
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2009, 05:38:44 PM »

Quote
Canon I of the 7th Ecumenical Council which confirmed the Quinsext's canonical authority

Witega,
Here is the relevant text from Canon I of Nicea II:

"We joyfully embrace the sacred canons and we maintain complete and unshaken their regulation, both those expounded by those trumpets of the Spirit, the apostles worthy of all praise, and those from the six holy universal synods and from the synods assembled locally for the promulgation of such decrees, and from our holy fathers. Indeed all of these, enlightened by one and the same Spirit, decreed what is expedient."
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum07.htm#CANONS

By "sacred canons" I assume that means the Apostolic canons.  Anyone disagree? 
By "6 holy universal synods", are you sure that includes Trullo/Quinsext council?
By "synods assembled locally", it cannot mean to include every local synod, since of course you would agree that many contradict eachother. So which ones? (Arles and Carthage on this thread's very topic for instance). 

Why is all this important?  If Pope Stephen II is right then so called Trinitarian heretics can be considered in the Church. 
So who wins? Council of Carthage/Cyprian's view or Counicl of Arles/Stephen II's view

Did the 7th Ecumenical Council really sanction Cyprian's canons?...

K
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2009, 06:25:06 PM »

Also Witega, in regards to your desire to be shown a case where a person changes his view because he was found to be at odds with Rome:
1) Are we sure Cyprian didn't submit to Rome?  (Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" says Cyprian appears to have accepted Stephens position on baptism. p181)  Though he does not say why he believes this.

Convenient for his theology.

St. Cyprian himself translated the letter Firmilian wrote against Pope St. Stephen.  Doesn't indicate that he caved.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2009, 01:04:09 AM »

By "6 holy universal synods", are you sure that includes Trullo/Quinsext council?
[/snip]
Did the 7th Ecumenical Council really sanction Cyprian's canons?...

Yes. The Quinsext council, which sanctions Cyprian's canon as well as St. Basil's first canonical letter, was considered by its attendees to be a continuation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, called back into session to attend to canonical manners as the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils proper had not made any canons--hence the name 'quinsext' 5-6. In the East, the canons of the Quinsext Council were always considered the canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council, although there was some controversy about this understanding in the West. This controversy was basically settled at the 7th Ecumenical Council. In the 4th session of that council, the minutes make clear that the assembled fathers considered the Quinsext a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical council, so when in Canon 1 of their own canons they affirm the canons "by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers " its clear they are affirming Quinsext and the list of specific local and individual canons which Quinsext included.

see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html for a decent of how the Quinsext canons were viewed in the years between their promulgation down through 7th Ecumenical council, including:
Quote
Pope Hadrian I distinctly recognizes all the Trullan decrees in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod.  “All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.”
(Quinsext LXXXII is the canon on the Lamb to which Pope Hadrian must be referring)

Finally, this historical witness of canonical collections is clear. From the time they were promulgated, down to the present, the Quinsext canons and the canons of the councils they affirmed, have been included in all Eastern canon collections. There's no question the Eastern Church has always accepted them both on their own authority and as confirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2009, 01:52:03 AM »

Witega,

Are we sure the West accepted Trullo's canons?  

Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

"from their first appearance in the West they aroused suspicion. Canon 46 for example, that rejected all heretical baptism, was notoriously opposed to Roman and Western practice. In the so-called "Decretum" of Pope Gelasius (429-96) they are denounced as an apocryphal book."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm

You state:
Quote
This controversy was basically settled at the 7th Ecumenical Council. In the 4th session of that council, the minutes make clear that the assembled fathers considered the Quinsext a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical council, so when in Canon 1 of their own canons they affirm the canons "by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers " its clear they are affirming Quinsext and the list of specific local and individual canons which Quinsext included.

How is it "clear" that "by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils" specifically means/includes Trullo's canons?  The letter by Pope Hadrian I is good evidence but is only a theological opinion in a letter, and as I'm sure you know cannot carry the weight of an official position of Rome, or be used as proof Rome officially recognized Trullo's canons.

K
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 01:59:59 AM by Kaste » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2009, 03:05:41 AM »

Witega,

Are we sure the West accepted Trullo's canons?  

Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

"from their first appearance in the West they aroused suspicion. Canon 46 for example, that rejected all heretical baptism, was notoriously opposed to Roman and Western practice. In the so-called "Decretum" of Pope Gelasius (429-96) they are denounced as an apocryphal book."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm

You state:
Quote
This controversy was basically settled at the 7th Ecumenical Council. In the 4th session of that council, the minutes make clear that the assembled fathers considered the Quinsext a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical council, so when in Canon 1 of their own canons they affirm the canons "by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers " its clear they are affirming Quinsext and the list of specific local and individual canons which Quinsext included.

How is it "clear" that "by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils" specifically means/includes Trullo's canons?  The letter by Pope Hadrian I is good evidence but is only a theological opinion in a letter, and as I'm sure you know cannot carry the weight of an official position of Rome, or be used as proof Rome officially recognized Trullo's canons.

K


I read somewhere that eventually the west accepted Trullo, but I could be wrong about that......I have to review to make sure. If you want to know my source......it came from here:

http://www.amazon.com/First-Seven-Ecumenical-Councils-325-787/dp/0814656161








ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2009, 03:48:39 AM »

Witega,

Are we sure the West accepted Trullo's canons?  

Define 'accept'. We know that Pope Hadrian I accepted them because he said he did. I leave it to Roman Catholics to explain when a Pope's decisions are authoritative and when they are not, since I think it's well-established that the Quinsext canons did not make it into the body of Latin canon law.

That is not, however, terribly relevant here. Your original question assumed that the baptismal controversy had been settled in favor of Pope St. Stephen's position when that is not the historical record. Pope St. Stephen's position was opposed not only by St. Cyprian (and 318 bishops of the North African Church) but by such Greek luminaries as St. Firmilian of Caesarea and St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Pope St. Stephen was martyred while in the midst of the controversy, and his successors dropped the topic. The Churches of Africa and the East continued with their practice, so that in the 4th century, we find St. Basil affirming, in his 1st canonical letter, that 'strictly speaking,' all converts (pagans, heretics, and mere schismatics) should be received via baptism, and then in 7th century we see the Quinisext council confirming both Cyprian's local council and St. Basil's letter, and the Seventh Council confirming the Quinisext--witnessing to a continuous understanding in the East, whether Rome ever accepted it or not. (fairly clearly acknowledged in the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes you yourself cite).




Quote
You state:
Quote
This controversy was basically settled at the 7th Ecumenical Council. In the 4th session of that council, the minutes make clear that the assembled fathers considered the Quinsext a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical council, so when in Canon 1 of their own canons they affirm the canons "by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers " its clear they are affirming Quinsext and the list of specific local and individual canons which Quinsext included.

How is it "clear" that "by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils" specifically means/includes Trullo's canons?  The letter by Pope Hadrian I is good evidence but is only a theological opinion in a letter, and as I'm sure you know cannot carry the weight of an official position of Rome, or be used as proof Rome officially recognized Trullo's canons.

You misread me. I said that we know that the Seventh Ecumenical Council considered the Quinisext canons to be the canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council (and *not* a local council) because in the minutes of the Seventh Council, St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, stated that they were. So when the Fathers of the Seventh went on to affirm the 'divine canons' set forth 'by the Six Ecumenical Councils' we know they thought they were including the Quinisext canons among those. And since Canon II of the Quinisext Council enumerates in detail which local councils and canonical letters it was affirming, it is easy enough to figure out which 'local councils and Holy Fathers' the Fathers of the Seventh Council were referring to.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,744


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2013, 06:03:27 PM »

I think it depends on what the Bishop thinks is appropriate for the situation.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2013, 06:18:44 PM »

I believe in the resurection of the thread, and the words in the discussion to come.  Amen.
Logged
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2013, 06:25:44 PM »

I was baptized Catholic and was recieved by Chrismation. It really depends on what one jurisdiction says.

I was baptized and confirmed in  the RCC. i was recieved by confession of faith not Chrismation.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2013, 06:27:01 PM »

I was baptized Catholic and was recieved by Chrismation. It really depends on what one jurisdiction says.

I was baptized and confirmed in  the RCC. i was recieved by confession of faith not Chrismation.

We will be chrismated.  Me, wifey, and son are baptized and confirmed in the RCC, daughter is baptized and chrismated in the UGCC.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2013, 06:29:22 PM »

I was baptized Catholic and was recieved by Chrismation. It really depends on what one jurisdiction says.

I was baptized and confirmed in  the RCC. i was recieved by confession of faith not Chrismation.

By which bishop and jurisdiction?  Sad
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2013, 06:37:50 PM »

Oh thread resurrections...
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 06:40:18 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
Rdunbar123
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 161


« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2013, 06:42:45 PM »

I was baptized Catholic and was recieved by Chrismation. It really depends on what one jurisdiction says.

I was baptized and confirmed in  the RCC. i was recieved by confession of faith not Chrismation.

By which bishop and jurisdiction?  Sad

Antiochian Diocese of the Midwest: Bishop Basil I asked  this question on Monachos (sp?) and was told this was not uncommon for RCs.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,045


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2013, 06:57:38 PM »

They have got to start handing out demerits for this crap.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2013, 07:15:35 PM »

I was baptized Catholic and was recieved by Chrismation. It really depends on what one jurisdiction says.

I was baptized and confirmed in  the RCC. i was recieved by confession of faith not Chrismation.

By which bishop and jurisdiction?  Sad

Antiochian Diocese of the Midwest: Bishop Basil I asked  this question on Monachos (sp?) and was told this was not uncommon for RCs.

No, I do not think it is uncommon. Not until I joined this forum nearly ten years ago did I read of receiving RCs by any method other than confession of faith.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2013, 09:55:44 PM »

Rdunbar123,

Thank you for the reply  angel
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2013, 11:16:05 PM »

I was baptized Catholic and was recieved by Chrismation. It really depends on what one jurisdiction says.

I was baptized and confirmed in  the RCC. i was recieved by confession of faith not Chrismation.

Interesting. Was that in the Antiochian Archdiocese? I've only seen chrismations of Roman Catholic converts.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #38 on: January 18, 2013, 10:07:40 AM »

We will be chrismated.  Me, wifey, and son are baptized and confirmed in the RCC, daughter is baptized and chrismated in the UGCC.

I guess I'm going to be the forum's broken record: Roman Rite, Latin Church. Not "Roman Church". (I could go on, not "Melkite Rite", not "Ukrainian Rite", etc. etc.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: baptism 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.155 seconds with 69 queries.