| Nevertheless, the ancient, apostolic and biblical practice of baptizing infants and children has been challenged by some in recent times. Let us look at the background and arguments of this debate before we turn to what it means for the Orthodox Church to baptize children. BACKGROUND Infant baptism was not controversial in the Church during the first two centuries after Christ. St. Polycarp described himself as having been in devoted service to Christ for 86 years in a manner that would clearly indicate a childhood baptism. Pliny describes with amazement that children belong to the Christian cult in just the same way as do the adults. St. Justin Martyr tells of the “many men and women who have been disciples of Christ from childhood.” St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote about “all who are born again in God, the infants, and the small children . . . and the mature.” St. Hippolytus insisted that “first you should baptize the little ones . . . but for those who cannot speak, their parents should speak or another who belongs to their family.” The first recorded opposition to the practice comes from Tertullian in the third century. He objected to the practice of baptizing infants because of the heretical idea that sin after baptism was nearly unforgivable. His dissention should be understood within the larger debates of his day, centered around perceived laxity in church morals and government. Many of the greatest Fathers of the third and fourth centuries were not baptized until they were adults, despite having been born to Christian parents. Among them were St. Basil the Great, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The later baptism of these men reflects a larger crisis in the newly legalized Church under St. Constantine. One reason postponing baptism became popular was the desire of some Christians to counteract the new wave of baptisms of pagans wishing only to belong to the faith of their emperor. While not yet a requirement of Roman loyalty or citizenship, baptism ensured that one was on the right side of Rome. Postponing baptism emphasized the significance of the rite, and was an attempt to preserve the genuineness of the life for which baptism served as the initiation. Postponement had nothing to do with the validity of a child’s baptism. Many of those Fathers whose baptism was postponed insisted later on that families baptize their new born children, notably St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, and St. Cyril of Alexandria. |
| 1. Methodology Our answer is twofold. First, we return to our methodology stated at the outset, that some evidence is better than no evidence. We have much more complete evidence for Judaism in Palestine than for Asian Judaism in this period, and, while we acknowledge the difference between them, evidence does suggest some elements in common; thus we look to the sources which provide us the most information. But second, despite their differences, Palestinian and Asian Judaism were not airtight categories, and travelers carried both news and reports of shame or honor from one synagogue to another. 1494 Palestinian refugees exacerbated social tensions for Jews in Rome, and it is not unlikely that they exercised significant influence in Asia as wel1. 1495 In the final analysis, it is not possible, given the state of our extant evidence, to demand the use of only local evidence. Thus, as Claudia Setzer points out in her study of Jewish reactions toward Christians (most often from Christian documents): Frequently the provenance of a work is unknown, or even if known tells us little. An author may grow up in one place, study in another, and write in a third. He or his teachers may be travelers, garnering traditions from various places. Further, materials from the two most frequently identified locales–Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor–show the whole range of reactions, from tolerance to persecution. 1496 At our cultural and chronological remove, locale, however important where we can reconstruct its distinctives, cannot provide the most decisive feature in reconstructing the background as a whole. In view of such circumstances as the likelihood of some post-70 Palestinian refugees maintaining ties with relatives in Palestine, we suspect that some events in Palestine may have affected views in the Diaspora, just as the pre-66 temple hierarchy and the war with Rome had. It is certainly true that the academy at Yavneh could not yet, and perhaps never did, rival the prestige of the temple hierarchy; but it had a more consistently focused outlook, and after some twenty years of growing power in the Holy Land, sanctioned (whether actively or more likely passively) by the Romans who always ruled through local representatives, had perhaps gained some allies in the Diaspora. |
| Despite the protests of Nestorius and the imperial representatives, the council of 431 opened and condemned Nestorius’ doctrine on several points, especially his rejection of the legitimacy of the Theotokos title, and his preference for the language of christological union as based on “graceful association” of the divine and human, and on Prosopon as a term of union, a term that could in certain circumstances be “plural” (the prosopon of Jesus, of the Christ, and of the Son of God). Soon after this, however, the Syrian delegation arrived, and hearing Nestorius’ complaints, proceeded to condemn Cyril on the basis of alleged Monophysitism as contained in the 12 Anathemas attached to his Third Letter to Nestorius. The anathema demanding their assent to the phrase “One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh” was read, unsympathetically, in the most literal way as an unskilled theologian teaching a mythic “avatar” Christology, and deserving of censure. The aftermath of Ephesus 431, therefore, was that divisions existing beforehand had been even more exacerbated. The emperor first enforced the condemnations of both Ephesine synods, and put Nestorius and Cyril under house arrest before eventually finding for Cyril’s majority council, and sending Nestorius into retirement. The Alexandrian and Antiochene Churches, however (that major two way split which at that time more or less comprised the whole of the eastern provinces of the church), were left in great disarray. The Antiochene hierarchs only proclaimed their Ephesine synod, not news of Cyril’s; and in Alexandria and Rome, Ephesus 431 was taken solely as a great triumph for Cyril and Rome, never paying attention to the theological issues raised by the easterners. So it was that in 433 the imperial court sponsored a reconciliation based around a form of compromise between the radical Syrian (Two Sons) language and the terms of Cyril’s mono-hypostatic language. This Formula of Reunion was probably composed in Syria (some have suggested Theodoret was the author), but was agreed to by Cyril and historically has been contained in his corpus of Letters as “Let the Heavens Rejoice.” For the first time the two great church centers in Syria and Egypt began to see clearly the points of divergence between them, and were pressured by Constantinople to come to a resolution, which proved to be possible on the assertion that “two natures” in the one Lord were not confused. |
| 20 Because of the influence this view of Harnack’s has had on modern historiography, we give the complete passage from his Dogmengeschichte, I, 1894 (2ed.) (ET Buchanan, History of Dogma, 1905, p.45): “If again we compare the Church about the middle of the third century with the condition of Christendom 150 or 200 years before, we shall find that there is now a real religious commonwealth (ein religiöses Gemeinwesen), while at the earlier period there were only communities (Gemeinden) who believed in a heavenly Church, whose earthly image they were, endeavored to give it expression with the simplest means, and lived in the future as strangers and pilgrims on the earth, hastening to meet the Kingdom of whose existence they had the surest guarantee. We now find a new commonwealth, politically formed and equipped with fixed forms of all kinds... We find the Church as a political union (politischen Band) and worship institute (Kultusanstalt), a formulated faith and a sacred learning (Gottesgelehrsamke); but one thing we no longer find, the old enthusiasm and individualism which had not felt itself fettered by subjection to the authority of the Old Testament. Instead of enthusiastic independent Christians, we find a new literature of revelation, the New Testament, and Christian priests” 22 The idea that the unity and catholicity of the Church consist precisely in her being a worldwide body with Rome at her center, in such a way that Rome alone remains the Church of the Lord par excellence, is maintained by certain Roman Catholic historians even at the time of this writing. See e.g. G.Bardy, “Die Religion Jesu” in Christus und die Religionen der Erde. Handbuch der Religionsgeschichte, ed. DDr F.Köning, III, 1951, pp.547–642, esp. p.632. Cf. also the scathing critique of this by Professor L.Philippidis, “Incredible!” (in Greek) in Orthodoxos Skepsis 1 (1958), pp.51–54 23 See e.g. J.Colson, L’Évêque dans les Communautés Primitives, 1951. This study concludes that the ministry of the bishop took shape under the influence of two traditions: on the one hand, the Pauline tradition which, according to the writer, emphasized the universal unity of the Church and the charismatics, and on the other, the Johannine which, according to the same writer, emphasized the local Church and the permanent ministers, the two traditions being brought together into one by Irenaeus. It is evident that this author, although a Roman Catholic, is a prisoner of the models introduced by Harnack with their antithesis between localism and universalism, and has not altogether escaped the influence of the Hegelian model of the Tübingen School as discussed above |
| 5. How will the Vatican respond? If the Vatican " s new communications team is as good as they say it is, Rome will stay silent. The Vatican and its media-savvy friends in Opus Dei said all they needed or wanted to say about Jesus " marital status during the whole " Da Vinci Code " saga a few years ago. They will likely let scholarly surrogates debate this one, while the hierarchy sits on the sidelines. The Vatican insists that there " s nothing new to debate about the gender and celibacy requirements for its priesthood. It " s unlikely that a business card-sized scrap of papyrus of dubious origin is going to change that. Or perhaps Pope Benedict XVI, himself a renowned scholar, will indirectly enter the fray over the fragment. He just finished his third and final installment on the historical Jesus. It will be published around Christmas, and will likely be as well received as the previous two, and sell as strongly. (Alessandro Speciale contributed to this report from Rome.) Daniel Burke and David Gibson -- ENInews/RNS eni.ch Другие публикации на портале: Книги Разум и сердце: пролегомен к критике страстного разума/Пер. с англ. Г.В. Вдовиной; науч. ред. А.М. Гагинского. М.: Академический проект, 2021. (Философские технологии: религиоведение) Уэйнрайт Уильям Джордж 10 Книги «Бог» Докинза. От «Эгоистичного гена» к «Богу как иллюзии»/Пер. с англ. К. А. Черноризова; под науч. ред. А. В. Храмова. — М. : Никея, 2022. — 272 с. Макграт Алистер Эдгар 10 Книги Теоэстетика. 7 лекций о красоте. — М.: «Никея», 2022. — 272 с. (Богословие культуры). Филоненко Александр Семенович 10 Книги По ту сторону секулярного порядка. Репрезентация бытия и репрезентация народа/Пер. А. Кырлежева под редакцией А. Гагинского. — М.: Издательство ББИ, 2023. — 360 с. Милбанк Джон 10 Книги Русская икона середины XVII – начала XX века. Коллекция Олега Кушнирского. М.: Эксмо, 2023. 10 Книги Византийская философия. Четыре центра синтеза /Пер. с болг. Г.В. Вдовиной. СПб.: Изд-во СПбДА, 2022. – 704 с. ISBN 978-5-6048867-5-5 Каприев Георгий 10 Книги Море житейское: воспоминания в четырёх томах. |
| and was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be commander-in-chief in Galilee. Showing great shrewdness to ingratiate himself with Vespasian by foretelling his elevation and that of his son Titus to the imperial dignity, Josephus was restored his liberty after 69 when Vespasian become emperor. Justin Martyr (c. 100/110–165, fl. c. 148–161). Palestinian philosopher who was converted to Christianity, “the only sure and worthy philosophy.” He traveled to Rome where he wrote several apologies against both pagans and Jews, combining Greek philosophy and Christian theology; he was eventually martyred. Leander (c. 545-c. 600). Latin ecclesiastical writer, of whose works only two survive. He was instrumental is spreading Christianity among the Visigoths, gaining significant historical influence in Spain in his time. Leo the Great (regn. 440–461). Bishop of Rome whose Tome to Flavian helped to strike a balance between Nestorian and Cyrilline positions at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Letter of Barnabas (c. 130). An allegorical and typological interpretation of the Old Testament with a decidedly anti-Jewish tone. It was included with other New Testament works as a “Catholic epistle” at least until Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260/263–340) questioned its authenticity. Letter to Diognetus (c. third century). Essentially a refutation of paganism and an exposition of the Chriscian life and faith. The author of this letter is unknown, and the exact identity of its recipient. Diognetus, continues to elude patristic scholars. Lucifer (fl. 370). Bishop of Cagliari and fanatical partisan of Athanasius. He and his followers entered into schism after refusing to acknowledge less orthodox bishops appointed by the Emperor Constantius. Macarius of Egypt (c. 300-c. 390). One of the Desert Fathers. Accused of supporting Athanasius, Macarius was exiled c. 374 to an island in the Nile by Lucius, the Arian successor of Athanasius. Macarius continued his teaching of monastic theology until his death. |
| In the evening of October 14, 2014, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Church Relations, arrived in Rome for an official visit, which will last till October 18. With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, the DECR chairman, acting as a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, will attend the plenary session of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Catholic Bishops on Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization and address the meeting. During his visit, Metropolitan Hilarion will meet with Pope Francis, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Vatican’s Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity Cardinal Kurt Koch, and will deliver a lecture at the opening of academic year at the Southern Italy Faculty of Theology in Naples. Metropolitan Hilarion will be accompanied by Hieromonk Stephan (Igumnov), DECR secretary for inter-Christian relations, Rev. Alexiy Dikaev, staff member of the secretariat for inter-Christian relations, and Hierodeacon Nikolay (Ono), postgraduate of the Ss Cyril and Methodius Institute of Post-Graduate Studies. Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. Also by this author Today " s Articles Most viewed articles Functionality is temporarily unavailable. Most popular authors Functionality is temporarily unavailable. © 2008-2024 Pravmir.com |
| 5. The claim of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the exclusive right of granting autocephaly. The institution of autocephaly arose within the Orthodox Church gradually and in its present-day form as the result of centuries-old development. Nobody ever granted autocephaly to the sees of Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or Constantinople: they all became autocephalous by virtue of the circumstances of the Church’s historical development in the first centuries of Christianity. Later, autocephaly would come into being and then be abolished for various reasons, but there was never a single universally accepted procedure for the granting or abolishing of autocephalous status. An Ecumenical Council was able to grant autocephaly. Thus, for example, the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus received autocephaly as a result of a decision by the Third Ecumenical Council in 431. A mother church from which a new independent local Orthodox Church had emerged could also grant autocephaly. For example, the autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church three times – in 1219, 1557 and 1879 – was granted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which has also granted autocephaly to a number of other local Orthodox Churches that have emerged from its jurisdiction. The Russian Orthodox Church has a thousand-year-old history going back to 988, when Kievan Russia was baptized by Saint Vladimir in the waters of the Dniepr. For several centuries a single metropolitanate of Russia, with its centre in Kiev, then in Vladimir, and then in Moscow, was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1448, however, the Russian Church acquired genuine independence after Saint Job was elected to the metropolitan see of Moscow without the consent of Constantinople. The Russian Church was compelled into making this decision as the Patriarchate of Constantinople at that moment was in union with Rome, while the Russian Church categorically rejected this Unia. The autocephaly of the Russian Church was not immediately recognized by Constantinople and the other eastern patriarchs. In 1589, however, the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II participated in the establishment in Moscow of a patriarchate, and the saintly bishop Job was elevated to the patriarchal dignity. An establishing statute was signed by Patriarch Jeremiah and those accompanying him, as well as by the bishops and archimandrites of the Russian Church, to confirm this act. The patriarchal dignity of the see of Moscow was affirmed at councils of the eastern patriarchs in Constantinople in 1590 and 1593. |
| Selinger R. The Mid-Third Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian. Frankfurt am Main, 2002. Shaw B. The Passion of Perpetua 11 Past and Present. Vol. 139.1993. P. 3–45. Shotter D. C. A. The trial of Clutorius Priscus//Greece & Rome. Vol. 16.1969. P. 14–16. Simon M. Verus Israel. Etude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’empire romain. Paris, 1964. Simonetti М. Qualche osservazione a proposito dell’origine degli Atti dei martiri//Revue des études augustiniennes. Vol. 2. 1956. P. 39–57. Simonetti M. Studi agiografici. Roma, 1955. Smelik K. A. D. The Witch of Endor: I Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis till 800 A. D.//Vigiliae Christianae. Vol. 33. 1979. P. 160–179. Smith J. W. Martyrdom: Self-Denial or Self-Exaltation? Motives for Self-Sacrifice from Homer to Polycarp a Theological Reflection//Modern Theology Vol. 22/2. 2006. P. 169–196. Snyder H. G. “Above the Bath of Myrtinus”. Justin Martyr’s “School” in the City of Rome//Harvard Theological Review. Vol. 100. 2007. P. 335–362. Sordi M. I primi rapporti fra lo stato romano e il christianesimo//Rendiconti delle classe di scienze morali, storichi e filologiche del l’Accademei dei Linceei. Vol. 8.12.1957. P. 58–69. Sordi M. L’apologia del martire romano Apollonio, come fonte dell’ “Apologeticum” di Tertulliano e i rapporti fra Tertulliano e Minucio//Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia. Vol. 18.1964. P. 169–188. Sordi M. La data dei martirio di Policarpo e di Pionio e il rescritto di Antonino Pio//Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia. Vol. 15. 1961. P. 277–285. Sordi M. The Christian and the Roman Empire. London, Sydney. 1983. Sordi M. Un senatore cristiano dell’età di Com modo//Epigraphica. Vol. 17.1955. P. 104–112. Steinhäuser К. В. Augustine’s Reading of the Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitas 11 Studia Patristica. Vol. 33.1997. P. 244–249. Stewart-Sykes A. Vita Polycarpi//Augustinianum. Vol. 40. 2000. P. 21–33. Streete G. P. C. Buying the Stairway to Heaven: Perpetua and Thecla as Early Christian Heroines//A Feminist Companion to the New Testament Apocrypha/Ed. A.-J. Levine. Cleveland, 2006. P. 186–205. |
| That may help explain why Westerners are so quick to forgive Western nations for past sins, yet so unwilling to forgive Russia. Of course, bad things have been done in this part of the world. In the Soviet Union, the Orthodox Church was under attack, churches were destroyed, and many Christians were martyred. The murder of the Royal Family was a terrible crime. The West is always quick to remember the sins of Russia’s past. Meanwhile, Hitler and Napoleon also did terrible things, and committed many crimes. Yet time has passed, and Western nations have been willing to forgive Germany and France. Why can’t they also forgive Russia? Perhaps it is because conflicts with France and Germany are assumed to be “internal affairs”, while conflicts with Russia are assumed to be risky interactions with a dangerous foreign power. The descendants of the First Rome are still trying to fight against the Third Rome. – Why do some critics accuse the Russian Orthodox Church as if it were an instrument of the Kremlin? In America, many people push for the separation of Church and State , where government operates without regard to religion or Christian morality. Of course, this approach is wrong. It is just an excuse for a nation to ignore God. Such people are worried by any cooperation between the Church and the government. As far as I can tell, the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church don’t try to control one another. They just work together in a brotherly way, to accomplish common goals. Of course, this annoys the West. – The Russian Constitution provides the freedom of religious choice. Religions are separate from the state. Why is Orthodoxy so heavily criticized? Yes, Russia has a long history of religious freedom. For centuries, Christians, Buddhists and Muslims have lived in Russia, without being a danger to one another. But in the West today, respect is usually only given to non-Christian religions. Muslims, Buddhists and atheists are praised, while Christians are called bigots. The West hates Russia, and the West also hates Christianity. The Russian Orthodox Church is both Christian and Russian, so it is doubly hated by the West. |
|
|
