Reminder: Official Orthodoxy in North America adopts Augustinian sacramental theology and rejects the teaching of St. Cyprian of Carthage (1999)

Conclusions and Recommendations from Baptism and "Sacramental Economy": An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York, June 3, 1999

 

A. Conclusions

The "inconsistencies" to which we referred at the beginning of our second section turn out, on closer inspection, to be less significant than they might appear to be. Granted, a vocal minority in the Orthodox Church refuses to accord any validity to Catholic baptism, and thus continues to justify in theory (if less frequently in fact) the (re)baptism of converts from Catholicism. Against this one fact, however, we present the following considerations:

1. The Orthodox and Catholic churches both teach the same understanding of baptism. This identical teaching draws on the same sources in Scripture and Tradition, and it has not varied in any significant way from the very earliest witnesses to the faith up to the present day.

2. A central element in this single teaching is the conviction that baptism comes to us as God's gift in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. It is therefore not "of us," but from above. The Church does not simply require the practice of baptism; rather, baptism is the Church's foundation. It establishes the Church, which is also not "of us" but, as the body of Christ quickened by the Spirit, is the presence in this world of the world to come.

3. The fact that our churches share and practice this same faith and teaching requires that we recognize in each other the same baptism and thus also recognize in each other, however "imperfectly," the present reality of the same Church. By God's gift we are each, in St. Basil's words, "of the Church."

4. We find that this mutual recognition of the ecclesial reality of baptism, in spite of our divisions, is fully consistent with the perennial teaching of both churches. This teaching has been reaffirmed on many occasions. The formal expression of the recognition of Orthodox baptism has been constant in the teaching of the popes since the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was emphasized again at the Second Vatican Council. The Synods of Constantinople in 1484 and Moscow in 1667 testify to the implicit recognition of Catholic baptism by the Orthodox churches, and do so in a way fully in accord with the earlier teaching and practice of antiquity and the Byzantine era.

5. The influential theory of "sacramental economy" propounded in the Pedalion commentaries does not represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church; it is rather an eighteenth-century innovation motivated by the particular historical circumstances operative in those times. It is not the teaching of scripture, of most of the Fathers, or of later Byzantine canonists, nor is it the majority position of the Orthodox churches today.

6. Catholics in the present day who tax the Orthodox with sins against charity, and even with sacrilege, because of the practice of rebaptism should bear in mind that, while the rebaptism of Orthodox Christians was officially repudiated by Rome five hundred years ago, it nonetheless continued in some places well into the following century and occasionally was done, under the guise of "conditional baptism," up to our own times.

B. Recommendations

On the basis of these conclusions we would like to offer to our churches the following suggestions:

1. That the International Commission begin anew where the Bari statement of 1987, "Faith, Sacraments, and the Unity of the Church," came to an abrupt conclusion, simply recognizing similarities and differences in our practice of Christian initiation, and that it proceed to reaffirm explicitly and clearly, with full explanation, the theological grounds for mutual recognition by both churches of each other's baptism;

2. That our churches address openly the danger that some modern theories of "sacramental economy" pose, both for the continuation of ecumenical dialogue and for the perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church;

3. That the Patriarchate of Constantinople formally withdraw its decree on rebaptism of 1755;

4. That the Orthodox churches declare that the Orthodox reception of Catholics by chrismation does not constitute a repetition of any part of their sacramental initiation; and

5. That our churches make clear that the mutual recognition of baptism does not of itself resolve the issues that divide us, or reestablish full ecclesial communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but that it does remove a fundamental obstacle on our path towards full communion.

 

Source: https://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/documents/northamerican.htm

 

Addendum: The View from Jordanville

The Understanding of Protodeacon Andrei Psarev, Professor of Theology, Patrology, and Canon Law at ROCOR-MP’s Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, NY.

My research leads me to the following conclusions: although in the practical aspect of reception the Church rather follows Augustine’s understanding than that of Cyprian, nonetheless Cyprian’s ecclesiology, that there are no mysteries outside the Church, was never refuted by the Orthodox Church. The attempt to reconcile this ecclesiology with existing grades of reception into the Church, as expressed by sacramental oikonomia, was only partially attended to by the Church Fathers (St Basil the Great, Blasteres, St Nikodemus). I was not able to find evidence that any of the Fathers who composed the canons held the position that in the reception of baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church, only the external form was accepted and that this form might be filled by grace at the moment of reception. Regarding this point of sacramental oikonomia, I agree with Fr Georges Florovsky that the “economical” interpretation is not the teaching of the Church. It is only a private “theological opinion”, very late and very controversial, having arisen in a period of theological confusion and decadence in a hasty endeavor to dissociate oneself as sharply as possible from Roman theology. Nevertheless, this theory enjoyed a place within the main body of Church law of the Russian and Romanian Orthodox Churches and was shared by noted authorities of Orthodox theology.

- “The 19th Canonical Answer of Timothy of Alexandria: On the History of Sacramental Oikonomia,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 51:2-3, (2007): pp. 319-320.

 

It has been necessary to consider the idea of sacramental oikonomia as expressed by Metropolitan Antonii and Fr. Georgii Grabbe, inasmuch as this idea was central to the ROCA' s view of the non-Orthodox. My own reading of the canons of St. Basil the Great, to which this theory refers, follows the interpretation of Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodskii), given in his article "The Church's Relation to the Ecclesial Bodies Separated from Her.” More generally, my understanding of ecclesiology, and particularly the distinction between the approaches of St. Cyprian and Bl. Augustine, has been formed by Fr. Georges Florovsky's article "The Limits of the Church." 

- “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad Towards Non-Orthodox Christians and the Ecumenical Movement (1920-1964): An Historical Evaluation,” 2004 dissertation from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, pp. 14-15.