The OCA

DIscussion and News concerning Orthodox Churches in communion with those who have fallen into the heresies of Ecumenism, Renovationism, Sergianism, and Modernism, or those Traditional Orthodox Churches who are now involved with Name-Worshiping, or vagante jurisdictions. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Post Reply
User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

Nevski,

When a Roman Catholic Christian is received into the Orthodox Church in America through chrismation, it is not to imply that his Roman baptism is recognized as "valid." The theoretics behind the practice is that chrismation corrects whatever "deficiencies" exist with respect to that baptism. The baptism is certainly recognized on a certain level, but that is not to say that its "vaildity" is recognized. It's a nuanced thing to be sure, but the fundamentalist or super-trad mind doesn't deal well with nuance.

If you cannot tell, character assasination is getting you nowhere. If anything, it's obscuring whatever good points you may be trying to make.

Sacramental economy is certainly not foreign to us "fundamentalists." Metropolitan Anthony (first presiding heirarch of the ROCOR) wrote what was perhaps the modern masterpiece on this subject.

The reason why such "economy" is generally not practiced by "super-trads", is...

  • it is just that, "economy"; thus exactitude is "the rule", and it's not something that needs a whole lot of apologies to put into effect, if that is what a Bishop or Synod feels is appropriate.

  • it has been heavily misunderstood, and intentionally distorted in modern times by the "Orthodox" ecumenists. While I will grant that the perspective you put forward is "better than most" (you need only go to certain other forums to see what most "canonical Orthodox" now believe on this subject, precisely because this is what their parish priest is teaching, and what they are informed of in the seminaries and academic conferences), it still "wiggles" more than it should. You speak in terms of "what is lacking" or "deficiency"; do you mean, the lack of grace, or are you trying to be ambiguous?

If the "whatever is lacking" view (as if there was some kind of "half grace" that the heterodox could receive from their "baptism") is true (in the ecumenistic sense), or the outright "papists have true mysteries" view is valid, then there is absolutely no room for "exactitude". If anything, it is an abuse, a sacrelige even - for the Apostolic Canons teach, to baptize someone who has already been truly baptized, is sacrelige, and is to be severely punished.

OTOH, said Canons also teach that heterodox baptism is a "pollution by the un-Godly", and not to be recognized as a true Baptism.

Given this, people can talk about "nuances" or the alleged sophistication of their views - but in the end, it is a matter of whether or not one accepts or disregards the indisputable fact, affirmed by every single Holy Father who touches upon this topic, that there is no salvation outside of the Church of Christ, and that the "sacraments" of the heterodox and schismatics are empty vessels; thus, when receiving former heretics, there is no crime in "re-baptizing" them (for in substance, a heterodox baptism is simply a bathing of the flesh, which St.Peter tells us is not what we value Baptism for - it's the grace of Baptism which is of fundamental importance). If the Church has shown leniency for pastoral reasons, it is She (and not the heterodox) which births said convert, giving grace the already imposed form.

This is the faith of the Church of Christ - who are we as individuals to deny this?

Seraphim

Nevski
Jr Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu 6 February 2003 12:39 am

Post by Nevski »

Nevski wrote:

Gotta run. More later.

Here's the "more" of which I spoke:

A super-trad once said the following to Bishop Tikhon:

Perhaps then I could finally get an answer as to how one, such as the author of this message, can defend the argument that heretic baptisms have Grace.

to which His Grace responded:

Why, I've never defended an argument that heretic baptisms have Grace. What an idea! What I have done is defended the practice of the Church of Russia (and others, including Constantinople and
Antioch of old) in receiving, for example, Lutheran and Roman Catholic
heretics into the Church by Confession of Faith, Life's Confession,
Absolution, Chrismation and the Eucharist. The reason I defend that is
that, as an Orthodox Bishop, I promised to be true to the Traditions I
received and not to do anything apart from what my brother Bishops have done.

His Grace frequently refers to the following article, among other sources, as a means of explaining the practice and views of the OCA. The reference to St. Basil is most important in it. I expect few here will find the article satisfactory, but I think it nevertheless affords some needed clarity to this discussion, and with it, I am done with this particular exchange:

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiolog ... n-ch4.html

Anthony
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed 23 July 2003 2:12 pm

Post by Anthony »

All I know from first hand experience is that the local OCA priest over here advocates use of the birth control pill for married couples and praises Martin Luther as a great man in his sermons. Yes, I have heard him say that.

In Christ,
Anthony

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

The question of Traditionalist Churches Baptizing heretics has been split off to here: http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... php?t=1559

mwoerl

PROOF!!!!

Post by mwoerl »

every church has renegade or otherwise deficient priests. they do and say all sorts of things. now, if i were to say-ROAC has a name-worshipper priest, so ROAC must approve of the name-worshipping heresy, there would undoubtedly be a great uproar.


because orthodox churches are in communion with each other does not always mean that all of them equally approve of each others policies. when the mp approved communing roman catholics, i am sure that the state church of greece did not approve of communing roman catholics.


many churches are involved in different organizations, consultations, etc etc etc. just becauseone of these organizations produces some sort of document, it does not mean that document is 'an official document' or policy of such and such a church.

so-and i hope this isnt hard to comprehend, but, it seems to be very difficult for some to grasp-if a priest communes monophysites, that does not mean his church 'officially' approves communing monosphysites. if church 'a' does officially approve communing monophysites, and church 'b' is in communion with church 'a', it does not logically follow that church 'b', then, approves communing monophysites. if a church is in some organization, or participates in some 'forum,' or whatever, documents produced by that organization are not official documents of the participating church.

one could easily say that met valentin approves communing roman catholics because he was in the mp during the period in which they did that. we would be told, oh no, he repented of that! apoparently, so has the mp becuase that policy was stopped not too long after it began-yet we must comtinue to hear about it on and on, mustn't we? one could easily also find nutcase priests in each and every true or genuine orthodox church in existence today (or are we going to hear that every priest of every 'traditional' church has been perfect?); if we held up their actions as indicative of the entire church, no doubt a lot of vehement protests would result. yet-that is the same thing that is going on here! seemingly there is a much lower 'threshold' for the 'official' orthodox than there is for the 'traditional'-especially those regarded as 'extreme' or 'strict' by this forum.

it is so much easier if everything is crystal clear and black and white, but it is not. unfortunately that aint the case. it is so much easier to be intellectually lazy, and go with the flow and show how much we know and go on and on with the 'well this oca priest did this so the whole oca officially approves of it.' unfortunately, this is not 'reason' at all, but supposition and innuendo. another comparison-one could easily say that all greek old calendarists must approve of homsoexuality because of the boston monastery example-this is exactly the same type and quality of reasoning that has gone on here! 'i know the oca officially communes monophysites,' and my proof is a document fromthe patriarchate of antioch and the fact the a greek archdiocese priest in illinois does!' these type of statements are utterly ridiculous, and ridiculous in the extreme! now-someone tell me you wonder why it is that especially the 'strict' traditioanalists are often percieved as simply 'goofy,' or 'bizarre,' or 'weird.' because of their never ending proclivity to make statements such as the one above-'proving' the oca does communues monophysites by offering documents and examples that have nothing to do with the oca! if it was such a prevalent and obvious thing-wouldnt it be a bit easier to 'prove' it?

as long as traditionalists rely on faulty reasoning, on the 'because i said so' line of thought, hoping for black and white in the gray areas, continually resulting in outlandish and ridiculous statements-you are hurting your own cause, and hurting it very badly. those who rely on such lines of 'reasoning' scare more people away from your churches than you attract; you damage the traditionalist cause; you are your own worst enemies; you are more harmful to traditionalism than the worst new calendar/ecumenist/modernist 'demon' you could possibly imagine could ever be.

and, beleive me, shooting the messenger wont help! when people say 'show me proof, they mean PROOF, not your opinion, not the opinion of someone else that you heard once. PROOF. it is difficult to collect sometimes. and apparently, at least from the posts i have seen on this thread, not many are willing to surmount that difficulty. of course, it is much easier to repeat things like a parrot, and to endlessly repeat your very own and oh so admired and cherished opinions. see how far it gets you.

mwoerl

Gregory
Jr Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 19 December 2002 4:23 pm

Post by Gregory »

Dear mwoerl, Amen, Amen, Amen!

Greg

romiosini

Post by romiosini »

Lord Have Mercy!

Last edited by romiosini on Sat 17 September 2005 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply