Is A Protostant "church" A Real Church

[Nihil Obstat]

The empty vessel is an attempt by unauthorized men to mimic the activity of the Church, but without the divine power to do so. In Orthodoxy the grace of God is attached to the Church, and not to the mysteriological rites per se. That said, as long as the rite authorized by Christ is celebrated within His body the Church it follows that it is filled with grace, but if that same exact rite is performed outside of the Church it is a mere shell, an empty vessel, confected by human authority alone. To put it another way, for the Orthodox the holy mysteries cannot exist outside of the Church.

So a couple follow-up questions then:

 

First, I refer back to my question about baptism by a Protestant minister under normal circumstances being objectively invalid, as opposed to a baptism in danger of death being presumably valid. It seems like a strange consequence to me, and I wonder if I am understanding correctly.

 

Second, I have read some Orthodox commentary which says that within Orthodoxy the simply say where the Church is, rather than attempting to define precisely where it is not. I do not know if this is a typical Orthodox perspective, or perhaps peculiar to the authors I have read, but if it is true would it imply that from the perspective of Orthodoxy, a Protestant could be considered as being a part of the Church only inasmuch as his ability to validly administer baptism is concerned, since baptism does not require orders?

[Apotheoun]

That is really interesting. Thanks.

 

I am still confused about the nature of baptism though, from the perspective of the Cyprianic position. I am looking at this quote:

So does this mean that a 'normal' baptism administered by a Protestant is objectively invalid, while a baptism in danger of death is not? Because that seems like a rather odd consequence to me, somewhat counter-intuitive.

One thing to remember about Irish Melkite, and I respect him greatly, is that he is not an Orthodox Christian, rather he is a Melkite Catholic and so his views may not necessarily coincide perfectly with the views of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. That said, I have been told by several of my Orthodox friends that baptism performed by a lay Orthodox Christian is acceptable when the danger of death is present, but if the baptized person should live after such a baptism he is required to go to the priest in order to have the other rites associated with baptism performed in order to regularize his emergency baptism. So, a lay Orthodox Christian can clearly baptize in an emergency, but - according to Orthodox tradition - a person who is not Orthodox has no power to baptize anyone, not even in cases where the danger of death is present, because a non-baptized person cannot give what he does not possess.

[Apotheoun]

Below is a link to a document on the holy mysteries written by an Orthodox priest named Peter Alban Heers. It should help to explain the position taken on the sacraments by the Orthodox Church:

 

The Mystery of Baptism and the Unity of the Church

Edited April 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

Excellent, thanks. I would love to understand this better. I feel like it could potentially illuminate a typically western understanding of the sacraments and ecclesiology as well.

[Apotheoun]

First, I refer back to my question about baptism by a Protestant minister under normal circumstances being objectively invalid, as opposed to a baptism in danger of death being presumably valid. It seems like a strange consequence to me, and I wonder if I am understanding correctly.

No, such a "baptism" - even in danger of death - would be utterly devoid of grace.

Could that unauthorized and empty rite later - through oeconomia exercised by a bishop - become grace filled upon the conversion to Orthodoxy of the person who received it? Yes, but that would be up to the individual bishop to decide. As an Orthodox seminarian - who will be ordained to the presbyterate in July - told me on the phone recently: the parish he will be assisting at baptizes converts to Orthodoxy that come to the Church from both the Protestant sects and the Roman Catholic Church.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Second, I have read some Orthodox commentary which says that within Orthodoxy the simply say where the Church is, rather than attempting to define precisely where it is not. I do not know if this is a typical Orthodox perspective, or perhaps peculiar to the authors I have read, but if it is true would it imply that from the perspective of Orthodoxy, a Protestant could be considered as being a part of the Church only inasmuch as his ability to validly administer baptism is concerned, since baptism does not require orders?

Although that is a popular saying, as several Orthodox friends of mine have pointed out, it does not come from the Holy Fathers.

 

Nevertheless, it is common enough among Orthodox to really not give much thought to the "baptism" (or other "sacraments") of heretics, because if a heretic approaches the Church in order to become Orthodox it will be up to the bishop, and not the lay faithful, to determine if oeconomia will be applied or not.

As far as the last part of your question is concerned, I think it is safe to say that the Orthodox would never positively affirm that a Protestant is a member of the Church. How could the Orthodox do that? It is the same as saying that a heretic is a member of the Church, which - according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the ancient canons - is not possible.

[Nihil Obstat]

Although that is a popular saying, as several Orthodox friends of mine have pointed out, it does not come from the Holy Fathers.

 

Nevertheless, it is common enough among Orthodox to really not give much thought to the "baptism" (or other "sacraments") of heretics, because if a heretic approaches the Church in order to become Orthodox it will be up to the bishop, and not the lay faithful, to determine if oeconomia will be applied or not.

As far as the last part of your question is concerned, I think it is safe to say that the Orthodox would never positively affirm that a Protestant is a member of the Church. How could the Orthodox do that? It is the same as saying that a heretic is a member of the Church, which - according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the ancient canons - is not possible.

I certainly agree with the bolded part here.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

It is the same as saying that a heretic is a member of the Church, which - according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the ancient canons - is not possible.

Ok, this...I now see my error.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Double post...

Edited April 2, 2013 by PadrePioOfPietrelcino

[Nihil Obstat]

Geez, it felt like the good old days for a minute there.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Indeed

[Religion_Binge]

I am thoroughly enjoying your conversation!

 

Of course, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both new studies for me.  I was raised in a Protestant, Southern Baptist Church, and am currently active in a Christian (Disciples of Christ, D.O.C.) Church.  I am in Seminary, and have begun conversations with the Ordination Board for D.O.C. 

 

So may I jump in and ask:  has my Baptism, salvific experience, evangelistic mission, discipleship development, teaching, missional community developments, calling and church participation in some ways "void" -officially- because these have all taken place outside a particularly Catholic community?

 

No sarcasm or cheekness meant.  I am genuinely curious what the official Catholic (and unofficial, for any interested laity :) response may be to this.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am thoroughly enjoying your conversation!

 

Of course, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both new studies for me.  I was raised in a Protestant, Southern Baptist Church, and am currently active in a Christian (Disciples of Christ, D.O.C.) Church.  I am in Seminary, and have begun conversations with the Ordination Board for D.O.C. 

 

So may I jump in and ask:  has my Baptism, salvific experience, evangelistic mission, discipleship development, teaching, missional community developments, calling and church participation in some ways "void" -officially- because these have all taken place outside a particularly Catholic community?

 

No sarcasm or cheekness meant.  I am genuinely curious what the official Catholic (and unofficial, for any interested laity :) response may be to this.

The typically western perspective would be that your baptism is presumably valid, if it occurred with the proper Trinitarian formula. Apparently the Orthodox do not agree with that, so I learned something new in this thread as well. :hehe:

[Anastasia13]

General speaking, this is true about the Orthodox, though trinitarian, Protestant baptisms are considered acceptable in the Armenian church (at least something like a Lutheran one) at least to the point that converts do not have to be re-baptized.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am thoroughly enjoying your conversation!

 

Of course, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both new studies for me.  I was raised in a Protestant, Southern Baptist Church, and am currently active in a Christian (Disciples of Christ, D.O.C.) Church.  I am in Seminary, and have begun conversations with the Ordination Board for D.O.C. 

 

So may I jump in and ask:  has my Baptism, salvific experience, evangelistic mission, discipleship development, teaching, missional community developments, calling and church participation in some ways "void" -officially- because these have all taken place outside a particularly Catholic community?

 

No sarcasm or cheekness meant.  I am genuinely curious what the official Catholic (and unofficial, for any interested laity :) response may be to this.

 

 

The typically western perspective would be that your baptism is presumably valid, if it occurred with the proper Trinitarian formula. Apparently the Orthodox do not agree with that, so I learned something new in this thread as well. :hehe:

And of course, as you can probably tell from the discussion we have been having, both Catholics and Orthodox would not consider an ordination within a Protestant community to have any sacramental effect.