This forum is for polite discussions among the various True Orthodox Christians. Only confirmed members of TOC jurisdictions are permitted. However, TOC inquirers and catechumen may be admitted at the administrator's discretion. Private discussions should take place in DM's or via email. Formerly "Intra-TOC Private Discussions."
"That would make sense. Would this second baptism (immersion in living water) be considered to be "conditional" baptism?"
I don't know. Aero-baptism and sand baptism is something, it seem, analogous to that of desire; when the emperor died on his way to be baptized by St.Ambrose, St. Ambrose gave him an Orthodox funeral even though the emperor was a catechumen; so, that's like of desire. However, that doesn't mean that if he had survived they wouldn't have baptized him in water.
But, like someone said; the original point I was making was that the whole obsession over what RTOC did in taking in three people from the MP, is no different than various documented cases, most of which, we've heard little to no anger about.
Thank you, Fr. Enoch, for explaining the matter of Baptism of aero, sand, and desire. That makes sense.
Thank you for all the replies.
It seems sad that Metropolitan Kallinikos and Archbishop Tikhon could not have remedied this impasse over the baptism of some of the clerics, especially since they are both True Orthodox.
Perhaps in time...
That is diplomatic. Let us hope ALL the fissures will be smoothed over among the various True Orthodox jurisdictions.
Maybe some spiritual balm recommended by Maria with oils of peppermint and tea tree would accomplish that !
Meanwhile, was there any other alternate way for Bp Akakije to depart from the GOC ? I am sure that Met Kallinikos was never
going to grant him a canonical release. So Bp Akakije was put into an unpleasant choice but had to take action.
It's clear: The Sergianiste MP is a graceless Sergianiste synagogue till now. Seraphim Lade, formerly a Lutheran, was unbaptized. This "chrismation" from him is very douptful. When in this topic is written about the ecclesiology of GOC-Kallinikos and RTOC Akakije, it's the the ecclesiology of M. Chrysostom of Florina (+1955) ?
Then, of course, Met. Seraphim was unable then to ordain Met. Vitaly to the Priesthood, which means Met. Vitaly was never really a bishop. For those who follow the course of Abp. Matthew this would be no problem. For the others it would be. How can you say it would be 'dubious', when you mean it was 'invalid'? Just say it was nothing, and be done with it.
In Christ,
Fr. Enoch
“We cannot destroy the Ecclesiastical Canons, who are defenders and keepers of the Canons, not their transgressors.” (Pope St. Martin the Confessor)
I must correct me himself; I agree totally with you: The "chirotonia" by M. Seraphim Lade about M. Vitaly Ustinov was not dubious, but null and void. M. Vitaly was not a Bishop.
