I found this article on the Limits of the Church by Fr Georges Florovsky, published in 1933. He specifically attacks the idea of sacramental economy that I hear preached here and in other traditionalist circles. I would like to hear the arguments that the traditional Orthodox Christians would use to respond to this article.
Thanks!
anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
Florovsky would have it that St. Cyprian was a lone voice, but on the contrary, he is part of the choir of Saints who all say the same, “Heretics have no Grace”. I am sure if the ecumenist Florovsky could cite a father who supported even with a single word, his argument, he would have offered a glimpse. But no such thing, because the entire conscienceness of the Church does indeed support St. Cyprian, despite Floresvky's outright ...untruths...regarding this.
Florovsky quietly slips in the assumption that the Church has received people by other means than Baptism because She recognized(s) that heretics have Grace. This seem to be the foundation of the entire article! What a scandalous and ecumenist thought. As has been stated before on this forum to a great length, the Church is only interested in the form of there heretics dead “baptism”, so that if it so decides, it can give it life. But under no circumstances has the Church ever recognized the Grace of heretics. To say such a thing would be to assert that the Orthodox have always recognized a sort of WCC, exactly what Florovsky is trying to prove.
I could literally go on all day Anastasios, is there any particular point Florovsky makes which you find compelling? Frankly, I find the whole thing imbecile; at least Schmemann and Meyendorf earn some credit with enough mental back-flips to try and confuse you with Latin style definitions.
Anastasios,
A better text on this subject (which is really about the correct and Orthodox way of receiving schismatic and heretics, not over the issue of economy itself) is:
I Confess One Baptism... by Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, Ph.D., D. Th. Parish Priest and Adjunct Professor, University of Athens
Published by: Saint Paul's Monastery, Holy Mountain Athos, Greece copyright 1994 Translated by the Priest-monk SeraphimAn Interpretation and Application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos
I Confess One Baptism is a translation and edited version,with additional material of the book in Greek by the same title, O Omologo en Vaptisma, which was published in Athens in 1983.
In I Confess One Baptism, the Protopresbyter George Metallinos introduces the reader to the Orthodox mind of the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos, important Greek Orthodox churchmen and scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He analyzes Canon VII (which regulates the manner of receiving converts) of the Second Ecumenical Council, convened in Constantinope in 381, on the basis of the writings of the Kollyvades and Constantine Oikonomos, heretofore little known in the English-speaking world.
Reception of all converts by baptism in the Church is established as the historically normative practice, with Chrismation only, as a rare and judicious phenomenon of economia. The Principles of acrivia and economia are defined, their scope delineated, and their application, both past and current, explained.
I have recomended this book a few times on this forum already and still do because it is such a good book. It available from Glorious Ascension Monastery(which is were I got the above quote).
Daniel,
Thanks for the link. I have skimmed that book, and also read Professor Erickson's rebuttal of the book, along with the Athonite rebuttal of Erickson's rebuttal. So I am letting all that sink in right now.
OOD,
Florovsky is merely presenting the "Russian" view of things that was common pre-revolution. Florovsky was also a theological master, and for you to call his article imbecilic is hilarious. Of course you will retort that formal education means nothing (even though most of the dogmatic Fathers of the Church had enormous amounts of education) but that's not my point.
What stuck me about the article is that if you beleive that outside the church there is no grace, then NO ONE should be received by economy. So why has it always happened? And why does Canon 95 of Trullo spell out the different classes of separations and how they should be reconciled? If there is no grace, EVERYONE should be baptised. And in case you bring in "economy vs. strictness", how could you reconcile that with no grace? A chrismation cannot confect a baptism!
What about Basil Canon I? He does say that the grace departs from those who separate, but he also states, "The ancients, accordingly, decided to reject completely the baptism of heretics, but to accept that of schismatics on the ground that they were still of the Church" Now of course Basil defines the categories differently than we do: Gnostics and Marcionites are HERETICS and thus baptised whereas Arians were received as schismatics by chrismation and abjuration of heresy. Schismatics were those "whose separation admitted a remedy." We of course tend to view schism as a rupture of ecclesial communion, whereas "illegal congregation" was the term used by Basil for that. Different ways of speaking aside, the point is clear: the baptism of some outside the Church is still "of the church" meaning it can be accepted as true baptism but it is CORRECTED upon the chrismation into the Church.
anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
Florovsky was also a theological master, and for you to call his article imbecilic is hilarious. Of course you will retort that formal education means nothing (even though most of the dogmatic Fathers of the Church had enormous amounts of education) but that's not my point.
I have never thought that formal education amounts to nothing; I have always considered it a supplement to understanding the Church and not the embodiment of understanding God as most “theology” schools are used.
Furthermore, if I may, Florovsky is only a “theological master” insofar as he agrees with Christ and the Church. Again, as I have always begged, show me a Holy Father who taught as he does, because rest assured, I can lay dozens upon dozens who utterly disagree. So while he may be a “master” somewhere, clearly the Church, not me, but the Church, says he is a “theological mess” on this particular matter.
What stuck me about the article is that if you beleive that outside the church there is no grace, then NO ONE should be received by economy. So why has it always happened? And why does Canon 95 of Trullo spell out the different classes of separations and how they should be reconciled? If there is no grace, EVERYONE should be baptised. And in case you bring in "economy vs. strictness", how could you reconcile that with no grace? A chrismation cannot confect a baptism!
Anastasios, the Holy Mysteries along with the true doctrines and correct practices associated with it are facts of the faith, which are immutable and eternal. Never may they be regarded as matters of discipline which can be modified as someone, especially a bishop, sees fit. And just so you know, “baptize” in Greek means “to immerse”, we understand this to be “buried” in water.
Economia does not mean a recognition of the Churches Grace in heretical faiths; Understand that when the Church for reasons of economy accepts the baptism of heretics or schismatics, it does not mean that She accepts that their baptism was a real one from the beginning. She merely accepts that the form of the baptism need not be repeated so long as the form resembled that of Orthodox Baptism. This form does not sanctify the heretic except only at the moment when, repentant, he is accepted into the Orthodox Church by the Chrism. Then and only then, by the sanctifying grace of the Church, is value given to that baptismal form which that man had at some time received and which was till then a dead form.
Today, the heretic “baptisms” are not only ineffectual because they are administered outside the Church, but by reason of their defective form would more likely be considered void even if administered inside the Church.
Now to your point, everyone CAN be Baptized. You asked why the 95th Canon of Trullo offers economia for certain groups being reconciled to Holy Orthodoxy, here is how St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain explains this practice of the Church: "In order to have an easily understood solution to this perplexity, it is necessary to know beforehand that two kinds of government and correction are observed in the Church. One kind is called 'Exactness' (Akribeia), and the other kind is called 'Economy' and 'Condescension' (Oikonomia and Synkatabasis). With these the Stewards (Oikonomoi) of the Spirit administer the salvation of souls, at times with one, at times with the other. So the Holy Apostles in their aforesaid canons, and all the Saints who have been mentioned, employed Exactness; and for this reason they reject the baptism of heretics completely; while, on the other hand, the two Ecumenical Councils employed Economy and accepted the baptism of Arians and of Macedonians and of others, but refused to recognize that of the Eunomians and of still others .... Those heretics whose baptism they accepted also rigorously observed the form and the matter of the Baptism of the Orthodox and were willing to be baptized in accordance with the form of the Catholic Church. Those heretics, on the other hand, whose baptism they had refused to recognize, had counterfeited the ceremony of Baptism and had corrupted the rite, or the mode of the kind, or (in the terminology of the Latins) species, and the same may be said of the invocations, or that of the matter, and the same may be said of the immersions and emersions, with reference to Roman Catholics and Protestants"
What about Basil Canon I? He does say that the grace departs from those who separate, but he also states, "The ancients, accordingly, decided to reject completely the baptism of heretics, but to accept that of schismatics on the ground that they were still of the Church" Now of course Basil defines the categories differently than we do: Gnostics and Marcionites are HERETICS and thus baptised whereas Arians were received as schismatics by chrismation and abjuration of heresy. Schismatics were those "whose separation admitted a remedy."
Arians not heretics!? :shock: Arians were received as schismatics not because they were indeed schismatics, but because they observed the Orthodox form of Baptism, which proves the point further!
In addition, this is not exactly what St. Basil says. Here is the properly translated Canon: “Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities --those, I mean, who form the party of Cyprian and our own Firmilian --to class them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism; however, those who receded from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, for the importation thereof ceased when the continuity was interrupted. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became common men and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain, nor could they impart the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, alter they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as being baptized by common men, and that when they came to join the Church, they should have to be repurified by the true Baptism of the Church" (1st Canon of St. Basil).
I don't see where he accepts what you say, on the contrary.
Also, forgive my "whole thing imbecile" comment. I only meant that Florovsky failed to qualify some rather remarkable assumptions. I could have said it in a more charitable tone.
Anastasios,
How did you arrive at your understanding of St.Basil's first canon? It seems pretty clearly stated in said canon, that upon departing from the Church, even Bishops become graceless, unable to perform Priestly acts (such as ordain or consecrate.)
Seraphim