Thoughts?

[Seraphim Reeves]

Here's an article on the issue of the reception of converts from schisms and heterodoxy which I think merits close examination - it's treatment of Russian practice on this subject, and it's critical examination of Greek practice, is particularly important. I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on this...

On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches by Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin)

In the appendix, I found the following recollection by the author of this piece (who was once in ROCOR).

I had a minor experience, which I will now dare to relate. In 1952, I had a parish in Bradford, England. There were many refugees in this industrial city that had their own churches: Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and others. There was a substantial community of Galician Ukrainians here, who were Uniats. I was told that they were quite hostile towards us Russians. Once, at night, I had a call from the local hospital telling me that a woman "of your religion" was near death. Taking the Holy Gifts I hurried to the hospital. The night was not only dark but a heavy fog covered everything. One had to walk from one streetlight to another. I reached the hospital and was shown the ward where the seriously ill woman was laying in an oxygen tent. Here I learned that she was not Orthodox but a Galician Uniat. Her husband was sitting next to her, crying. I told him that she was not Orthodox but belonged to the Roman Catholic faith. It was urgent that any Roman Catholic priest be called. At the same time I assured the husband that I will not allow her to die without Communion, and if the Catholic priest could not come or does not come in time, I will give her Communion myself. The Catholic priest arrived quickly. He was an Englishman and did not know Russian or Ukrainian. I offered my help. I asked the sick woman if she repents of her sins and does she want to receive Communion. She answered, "Yes, Father" in her Ukrainian accent. I related her words for the priest and he gave her Communion. I was at the hospital several days later and was overjoyed to see that the sick woman was recovering quickly, and she was happy to see me. After this, I was walking on the street past a Galician club and was pleasantly surprised when all those who were outside the building doffed their hats and greeted me, a Russian priest, warmly. I told of this to our great hierarch, Archbishop John [Maksimovich] and said to him that I would have given Communion to the dying woman even though she was a Uniat. After this I was ready to accept any punishment that the Holy Orthodox Church would give me. Archbishop John’s reply was worthy of his sanctity and love towards people: "No punishment would have been given to you."

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

I believe that if you read a four chapter essay on the history of the reception of converts written by Latin scholars (of course in their case it would be 30 or more chapters) you would find what seems like a very credible argument. The point is, history is often very subjective, especially when one purposely embarks to prove a preconceived idea. And not only is it subjective, but often objectivity is impossible and sometimes even undesirable. That is, if objectivity were possible it may be undesirable anyway, because if you have any kind of aim, if you think history should serve an end in some way; should serve the position of your church or its ideas; should serve your hierarchy in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance these causes.

Therefore anyone can write a history of the reception of converts. The Mormans can do one to support their church if they so chose. But theirs may be easier to identify as error than that of an ecumenist.

I once read a very short book written by CTOS. It was about the history of the Romans written first from the Latin perspective, which we have all been exposed to in the West, and then the same history was written again from the perspective of the Romans (Byzantines). You would in no way recognize them as the same history. It was remarkable.

So I guess rather than comment specifically on such a broad essay involving chapters (which would be a week long affair), I just thought it would be useful to highlight the danger whenever we read any “history” about anything.

For instance, does this history of the ecumenists mention that the Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, when they learned of the method the Russian began to receive converts in the 1600’s, under great Western influences at the time, met in council and added this to the list of the “errors of the Russians”? But the Russians have since never corrected this error and it is now used, after several centuries, as "tradition". How much time does this essay talk about this? Does it minimize its importance or maximize the importance?

The Orthodox have no need for history books to prove the Holy Traditions of the Church. The living Tradition has never been disrupted, because the very mouth of Christ promised the Church that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her”. Those who search to find the Tradition of the Christian Church of the first centuries or of the centuries before the ecumenists in order to follow it confess that they have lost the continuity of Tradition. But they are never going to find it no matter how much they push forward their researches, because the Tradition is something living and transmitted as life from the living to the living. It is not something which is discovered through scholarly studies, nor is it something which is learned intellectually.

I am of course not saying this essay is entirley bad, but I know bishop Tikhon of the OCA has used it to justify their heretical baptismal theology. So with that in mind, was there anything specific you thought was important?

[Seraphim Reeves]

OOD,

Therefore anyone can write a history of the reception of converts. The Mormans can do one to support their church if they so chose. But theirs may be easier to identify as error than that of an ecumenist.

Ok...

The Orthodox have no need for history books to prove the Holy Traditions of the Church.

Would you say the same thing to Old Calendarist canon quoters, or those who cite the Fathers in an attempt to expose the "heresy of the ecumenists"?

Obviously, if there is a dispute (with both parties claiming to stand in the truth and tradition of the Church), an appeal to sources is necessary.

As far as the author of the work is concerned, he's not discovering any new truth - but simply underlining what has always been accepted in the Russian Orthodox Church, and he would say, at one time was accepted generally amongst the Greeks as well (that the baptisms of certain groups are accepted by the Church, and are not to be repeated; the obvious import being that those baptisms were/are "valid".)

For instance, does this history of the ecumenists mention that the Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, when they learned of the method the Russian began to receive converts in the 1600’s, under great Western influences at the time, met in council and added this to the list of the “errors of the Russians”? How much time does this essay talk about this? Does it minimize its importance or maximize the importance?

If you read it before responding, you may already know...

But, to save you the effort, the answer is - indirectly. A lot of time is spent discussing the antagonism of GREEK Orthodox Churches (which would include the Patriarchs you mention) toward the Russian Orthodox Church, but to varying degrees, the Slavic Churches in general. It is also readily admitted that the Greeks had become much more sour in their attitude toward the Latins and the implications this had for how they received converts from western heterodoxy. The historical factors which caused the Greeks to go over to the practice of baptizing such converts, did not occur in Russia. The basic argument being, that the "curious" practices of the Russians, were in reality, the ones in line with the Ecumenical Councils and pre-1756 "Council of Constantinople" Greek Orthodox practice. Of course, the article gives it's own evidences for these conclusions - since they are to be found there, it makes little sense for me to repeat all of it here.

Now, if the history provided is basically flawed, I'd like to know how.

Also, if there was something basically heretical (how else can we describe it?) about the Russian practice (the "errors of the Russians"), then from a "genuine Orthodox" perspective what consequence does this have? It would seem lesser things, than centuries of Russian heterodoxy, have created schisms in the 20th century.

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Would you say the same thing to Old Calendarist canon quoters, or those who cite the Fathers in an attempt to expose the "heresy of the ecumenists"?

Obviously, if there is a dispute (with both parties claiming to stand in the truth and tradition of the Church), an appeal to sources is necessary.

I guess my point was that we just need to be conscience of bias in anything that is written. I'm sure someone can write a book on why Stalin was a saint.

I have read this article several years ago, and remember I was left questioning its intent when I found there to be some glaring errors.

As far as the author of the work is concerned, he's not discovering any new truth - but simply underlining what has always been accepted in the Russian Orthodox Church, and he would say, at one time was accepted generally amongst the Greeks as well (that the baptisms of certain groups are accepted by the Church, and are not to be repeated; the obvious import being that those baptisms were/are "valid".)

To make a statement such as this is to say that the Holy Fathers are grave sinners for not distinguishing between the Baptism of the Church and that of heretics. The holy canons recommend they all be deposed!

Now, if the history provided is basically flawed, I'd like to know how.

It is flawed in its very premise, as I just mentioned.

With your past writings on this subject I know you are aware how broad it is. It covers many centuries and many places and people. This is why I have so far been reluctant to tackle any one arguement.

You tell me, what is the most convincing argument and what is its conclusion?

[bogoliubtsy]

Very interesting reading. Thanks for posting it. Unlike some more basic writings on this topic which simply cite the 18th century decision of the Greek Church as some kind of conlusive proof, this essay does a good job of taking into account the response of the entire Church, nicely supplementing the well written history with the decisions of the Ecumenical councils, examples of heretics who have held the "strictest" position, and the example of a recent saint. The article, in my opinion, also seems to be written in a spirit of love and genuine concern for the continuation of the Church's traditions.

OOD or others who may know- Can I be directed to another perspective on the history of the reception of converts? Particularly one which does as good a job as this at being thorough and balanced?

[Seraphim Reeves]

OOD,

To make a statement such as this is to say that the Holy Fathers are grave sinners for not distinguishing between the Baptism of the Church and that of heretics. The holy canons recommend they all be deposed!

Easy to say, but where's the evidence? Since the Apostolic Canons do not have one interpretation, and St.Cyprian's view is already acknowledged, what other Holy Fathers are you thinking of?

[bogoliubtsy]

Now, if the history provided is basically flawed, I'd like to know how.

It is flawed in its very premise, as I just mentioned.

Either the history is flawed, or the history is basically correct.

If the history is correct, then I think those who hold to the strictest position on the reception of converts need to offer an apology for their new position which is not in keeping with the general practices of the Church. Perhaps ROCOR and some of the Greek Old Calendarists have attempted to do this.

If the history is incorrect, I'd like to know how.