I love how he criticizes using ecumenism, but talks about how it was ok in Spain because they didn’t want to create a stumbling block. These EO guys always criticizing rome of what they have been doing themselves.
I’m not equating the words, but I’m comparing how the two words are strategies to create exceptions in order to bring someone into communion with the respective churches. There is a fine line between ecumenism and compromising the rule of faith. Likewise, there is a fine line between a bishops use of economy, and compromising the faith. Is it not a grave matter when two bishops have different practices of the reception of converts. There have been schisms over more petty stuff than this subject. All of this leads me to believe Catholics have more unity of faith, even though I’ll concede that certain liturgical traditions are better preserved in the east. I guess that could be part of why we would call ourselves “Catholic” and you would call yourselves “Orthodox” (even though we would both claim to be Catholic and orthodox)
In a way, economy could be worse than ecumenism, because ecumenism is dialogue about unity, whereas economy is more of a decision process. Both can be abused or imprudently applied even though they are distinct terms
@@horusgodson Not at all. Y'all were both great. The depressing part was that not only did the good father not seem to understand the licit vs valid distinction, he kind of dismissed it as simply foreign. I suppose he has the right to be that way from his perspective, but it doesn't bode well for moving any closer to fulfilling Jesus' prayer that we all be one. And in the context of talking about Baptism, it especially sucks.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ The missing piece of the puzzle, is that of course as Orthodox we desire all to be one. But we desire that all be one in the truth, and that all be one in repentance to Christ. The devil not only is a divider, but also a false uniter. False unity, in many ways, is a key theme in modern day apostasy. You can see that reflected in, say, the controversies on what constitutes a true unity in marriage nowadays, where all unions must be recognised as true unions.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ I've had EO tell me straight up that liceity is not a legitimate category before. That's a fun conversation. To be fair, maybe it isn't to them, but many of them like to do this "sacramental Pascal's wager" type thing where they try to say that because Catholics recognize the validity of Orthodox sacraments and priesthood but the reverse isn't true, people ought to become Orthodox. The concept of liceity blows up this wager pretty quickly from the Catholic side.
Good video, two very knowledgeable people. About the serbian orthodox church. I have been baptized in the Serbian True Orthodox Church (STOC), and all our baptism are by triple immersion. I was received from SSPX. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to be baptized in a river, we normally do it, but not on the day I was baptized, didn't know why.
Regarding the point about chrismation filling invalid baptisms with grace, this actually comes from St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum 11.67: “Holy baptism, which they have received among heretics, then acquires in them the power of cleansing, when either the former receive the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands (i.e. chrismation), or the latter are united to the bowels of the holy and universal Church by reason of their confession of the true faith.”
@@horusgodson I’ve seen people on both sides of this debate use it in defense of their position. The way this idea is usually articulated is that heterodox baptisms are empty forms that need to be filled with grace through chrismation. I actually find this theory a little problematic in light of Acts 19, although it wasn’t what St. Gregory had in mind since they weren’t Trinitarians, St. Paul used language which to me sounds very similar in reference to the baptism of John. I don’t know how to square that circle, but God can square any circle and he will have mercy on him whom he will have mercy.
I think you're absolutely right in your assessment of pope gregory the greats letter. He *doesnt* seem to suggest one form is the normative method of baptism. Its another fly in the eastern orthodox ointment that single immersion was present when the two churches were in communion and to make it a dividing issue now really seems to be more a case of needless nitpicking
Hey Bellarmite, I’ve been helping a sede friend battle the SSPV regarding a conditional Baptism that they want him to undergo. He refuses because he believes it was valid (he was Baptized in the NO). One thing I’ve heard quoted (but for which I’ve never found the source) is that Protestants before V2 were always required to undergo conditional Baptism. In the sources I’ve read this has never been the case: instead the Church recommended an investigation before declaring one way or another. Do you have a source of the claim the EO priest makes here about the CC mandating conditional Baptisms for incoming Prots? Also, do you have patreon or email / discord contact info you can share? Thanks. By the way this video was very interesting. It really does sound like some sede groups are effectively taking on an EO method for reception of Catholic (NO) converts.
I don’t see how the rigorist view could be seen as the normal principle by which the Church judged the validity of baptisms since the beginning where Pope St. Stephen practically had the widest view of what was valid. It seems like over time the conditions of a valid baptism which were more clear after certain definitive statements were made in doctrine.
Because the view of pope Stephanus never was accepted in the east. Firmillian, bishop of Caesare was on the opposite spectrum of the controversy (with Cyprian in the middle), and it is his view that have been accepted concillarly in the east. The west remain on its own, but because of the split each side lost one and other the option. Christianity tend to get more and more restricted over time, that's how it goes.
@@ThruTheUnknownYes the case of Basil letter to amphilochius deserve it's own topic. It is the moment where the distinction Rion between schismatic and heretic need to be introduce. Basil do not undermine the previous decision in Asia of using the Firmillian method. But he put the Arian with the schismatic like quartodeciman etc.. Not with the heretic. All of this is well explained in the book of Fr Peter Heers on the subject.
The re-baptism controversy seems like a pretty prescient issue that something like an ecumenical council would solve reasonably quickly. Better late than never... you'd think the Orthodox bishops could at least agree on that
St. Vincent of Lerins recounts the dispute between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian, and defines re-baptism as "an innovation" that is "contrary to the rule of the universal Church" «Once on a time then, Agripinnus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine - and he was the first who held it - that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. *This innovation* drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave *an example of sacrilege* to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested *against the novelty*, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation -nothing but what has been handed down. […] *Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected*» St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium 6
300 hundread years prior to Vincent of Lerins, Firmillian, bishop of Caesare accuse pope Stephen of exactly the same thing, to introduce heresy saying that heretic perform valid sacrement. According to the own criterion of Vincent of Lerins, I should reject his opinion. This is not a matter of rebaptism, I was "rebaptised", and I still maintain that I was baptized once. This is a matter of, can catholic priest perform a sacrement. We do not believe so.
Fr is being legalistic about the form of baptism but is basing economy on the emotion state of the lay person. That’s so hypocritical. Sounds like a Protestant Baptist in a way.
@@theorthodoxapologeticschan9378 it’s definitely a messy topic and you can point out inconsistencies in all of the apostolic communions, but the difference I see is that there is division among the Eastern Orthodox lower case c churches on this(which it sounds like you might accept the difference of prudential decisions) whereas the Catholic Church, while you as an EO would consider it incorrect or operating with the exception as the norm, is able to define these things across our whole communion.
