Are you saying that Cyprian didn’t teach that, or are you saying that he didn’t claim it as a traditional view? I’m not aware of Cyprian teaching exactly what you have formulated here, but he was at least not assuming the existence of sacraments outside the church, and he was claiming that as the traditional view.

” I read your quotation citation of Schaff as weighing in favor of my point!”

How? You favorably quoted the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation:

“Concerning the second and third groups, Basil declares that they are still “of the Church,” and as such are to be admitted into full communion without baptism.”

That’s saying that schismatics are still of the church (whatever that means), and for THAT reason, their baptism can stand. But Schaff says:

” the EXTERNAL RITE of Holy Baptism might be validly performed by schismatics and heretics, yet that by it the person so baptized did not receive the Holy Ghost”

Schaff is saying that schismatics can perform the externalities correctly, but it avails to no good for the recipient who does not receive the Holy Spirit (unless he were to come into the church).

Do you think the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation would have proudly released a document stating Schaff that schismatics do not have the Holy Spirit?

BTW, I’m not claiming that anyone doesn’t have the Holy Spirit. I’m saying that the traditional view is there is no certainty of sacraments outside the church, which is contra what this Theological Consultation is saying. And I don’t know why this document quotes “of the Church” as if that is some kind of direct quote from Basil when he doesn’t say anything even nearly like that.

“Basil’s canon on reception and ecclesiology, constituted the sole theory and practice of the Church for 1500 years and still is the prevailing view among the vast majority of Bishops”

Why would 1500 years of anything be controversial to me, since I have stated Basil’s position that people may be received by either baptism or not by baptism? That pretty much accounts for all the possibilities. You are not offended by 1500 years, but I am not offended by 2000 years.

” (2) I don’t consider ecumenism a dirty word.”

Neither do I, but this particular ecumenical document has misrepresented Basil. I’m more offended by the misrepresentation than the conclusions. There is no quote in Basil about “of the church”, nothing even like it. And if you agree with Schaff, there is no comfort in the Fathers for ecumenists who want to say that they are in mere schism and therefore each other certainly have valid sacraments because they are both in the church. If they want to say they “might” have valid sacraments, maybe that would be another thing, but ecumenists rarely want to tread so carefully when they can make a bold statement by saying they are all of the church.

In Jude, the faith “once delivered” says in the Greek that the faith was “traditioned” (the verb is paradidomi) to the saints. Didn’t say the faith was written – it said it was traditioned. There are many things so described in the NT. But you should admit that you use historical theory for which you have no “Biblical” justification. Just some a priori assumptions.

The Orthodox assumptions, about history, the Apostles, the Councils, etc., are part of what was traditioned to us – from the beginning. We were there.

Each congregation of the church of Christ is autonomous. Using only the Bible as a guide, we have pretty good agreement. Just because a church calls themselves a “Church of Christ” doesn’t mean that they are one. There are areas of obvious judgment such as: what time on Sunday to meet, how many songs to sing at the service, whether to use spontaneous or written prayers, whether to use some kind of lectionary or not, etc. We generally pray spontaneously and don’t use a lectionary, but these are areas of judgment and thus don’t involve doctrine. We have no organization beyond the local congregation/church. That seems to be the way they did it in Acts and the epistles. We try to use that as a pattern.

I believe the scripture does claim self-sufficiency: Matthew 15.9; John 16.13; Galatians 1.8; Jude 3; Revelation 22.18-19. Also, please note: 1 Timothy 1.3; 1.10; 4.16; 6.3; 2 Timothy 3.16; 4.3; Titus 1.9; 2.1; 2 John 9-10. None of the texts in the second list make any sense whatsoever if correct doctrine could not be identified when they were written (1st century). From the passages I have referenced in this comment and previous ones: correct doctrine could be known, additions were prohibited, and all of this was before non-apostolic councils. It is an irrefutable fact that if councils were necessary after the close of the NT/apostolic period (c 100 AD), then the Christians in Acts and those to whom the epistles were written didn’t know what they were doing. You cannot have it both ways. To say that the Acts Christians were real Christians and the human councils were necessary involves a contradiction. The apostles teaching started out orally (call it tradition if you like) and over time was written down. This process of converting oral to written ended by the death of the apostles, around 100AD.

In the work of several canonists (such as Erickson at St. Vladimir’s) the development of the distinction between akribeia and economia is seen as somewhat unique in Nicodemus – or how he uses it is seen as somewhat unique (it helped reconcile some things within his thought). The traditional Russian take on those things is apparently somewhat different. Truth told – certain aspects of the canons really require a level of expertise in the field not possessed by most priests, monks, even bishops. Much of the present discussion that is taking place lacks that level of expertise. It creates much heat and little light. It is of great interest to me – but pushes beyond my training. I honestly have to look at some of it and say, “I don’t know about that.”

That hit right home. Especially because the adversary talks with my own voice.

Interesting. Would that we were all fluent in Greek, as I find varies translations of the canon.

Still, I think the sentence that says, if your local canon forbids rebaptism of Novatians (as at Rome), “yet let reason prevail,” means that Basil intends his good-sense canon to supersede any local canon to the contrary on the ground that he is adjudicating, by operation of his epistle, that the Novations now to be regarded as heretics and are no longer to be treated as mere schismatics. Hence, I don’t think Basil intends for local custom regarding the Novatians prevail anymore. If he did, it would be more logical for him merely to say nothing about and let the diverse status quo continue.

In sum, I still think that the idea of an strictness/economy option is just not in Basil’s thought either explicitly or implicitly and, therefore, that Basil cannot be so easily reconciled with Cyprian. Indeed, the fact that no body wrote about any such strictness/economic distinction before Nichodemus — well over a millenium after Basil wrote his canonical epistles — tends to support this view.

I always assume the grace of the sacraments. God has promised us grace in this manner. I notice that things blow “hot and cold” within me depending on a wide variety of things. Sometimes my own actions or thoughts harden me towards God – sometimes I find myself inclined towards God (certain actions and thoughts are helpful in this as well). On a practical level I try to keep things simple:
1. Pray. Regularly. Pray as much as possible with attention to what I am saying and as much as possible mean what I say and say what I mean.
2. Forgive. As far as in me lies to forgive everyone for everything.
3. Practice mercy. As much as possible, seek to be kind and to show mercy towards others as I would want mercy shown to me.
4. Trust in the goodness of God. As much as possible to give God thanks at all times and for all things.

Even the smallest efforts in these directions, by God’s grace, can have very large effects.

Lately I have been trying to add a fifth thing:
5. In all things, talk to God and not the evil one. God is kind and merciful and so are our conversations with Him. Conversations with the adversary are always dark – he condemns us when we fail and tempts us when we don’t. Conversations with him simply pull us down. In conversations with God – even when we have no sense of His presence or feel utterly bereft of grace, we can say, “Have mercy.” He does and He will.

May God help you.

Also, a last thought. The words of saints (like St. Silouan) can sometimes contain more mystery than we can digest. If something resonates and makes sense that is good. If something is troubling, let it be. Don’t struggle too hard to understand something that seems difficult or puzzling. We have to let some things be.

I can totally identify with what you describe. Here are a few thoughts which have worked for me. None of these are original. Try to answer these questions honestly and completely.

1. Do you believe you are God or do you believe there is a Supreme Being greater than you? Many of us have to accept that we live our lives as if our desires and actions should only be guided by us and thus we have very little room for God…we are esssentially are own gods running our lives on the basis of self will.

2. What are the wounds in your life which need healing? Are these wounds ones that you accept you are not able to heal without the help of a Power greater than yourself? An honest answer here will open you up to a experience with God as a Person not an idea. Painful,real, complete answers which express your powerlessness and need are critical. From your note, perhaps, the inability to guide your children as the spirtual head of the household….perhaps, the idea that your life lacks purpose and doesn’t fit into anything beyond the temporary….perhaps, the sense that you are constantly seeking but never finding…whatever is from your heart is the key.

3. Is it possible that God is capable and willing to heal the wounds which you cannot heal on your own? Are you willing to surrender these wounds to Him letting go of what you want in terms of specific outcomes? Are you willing to act with a faith that God can heal these wounds if you let Him? Is it possible that what has been holding back an experience of God as a healer is an unwillingness to give Him the secret hurts which seperate you from Him and true intimacy with others? Can you begin to see the possibility of a childlike faith in a God which heals your wounds as curtain which begins to reveal who God really is?

4. Now pray for this healing and this experience of God as Great Comforter and Giver of Life. See how much of a true sense of repentence (change of mind) you can create which gives up the life you’ve been leading without God as your Director as you humbly welcome Him in.

5. Try going to small Orthodox services (like early morning Matins or Vespers) and focus almost exclusively on praising this God you have accepted you need but have not begun to more deeply experience. Pray earnestly the words you hear in these services. Words like “Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth who art everywhere present and fillest all things, Treaury of Good Gifts, and Giver of Life , come and abide in us, cleanse us of all impurities, and save our souls ,O Good One. See if the emptiness of your wounds can’t welcome the Love He Is and wishes to give to you….In Christ