Well, if strictness is the desirable option, why doesn't the council prescribe it for non-Chalcedonians? All it seems to require of non-Chalcedonians is a renunciation of errors, and then they can be admitted to Communion. Yet, there are people here who would insist that such need to be baptised. Why the disconnect?
Why traditionalists Baptize heretics, Split from The OCA
-
Mor Ephrem
- Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri 8 November 2002 1:11 am
- Location: New York
- Contact:
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Mor Ephrem,
I must not have been clear. I would think strictness would be the desirable option for the person entering the Church.
I have talked to people who have been received both ways, and the ones who received the form by the Church (ie baptism), neve have any regrets and are always very happy they did.
On the other hand, those who were chrismated, often did have regrets.
Through your Baptism you put on Christ (Χριστόν ενεδύσασθε), you are buried to the world and raised to Christ in water that is actually Holy Fire. The Chrismation is your baptism in the Holy Spirit, your partaking of Pentecost.
May the Holy Spirit guide everyone into His communion through fasting and repentance! - Μετά φόβου Θεού, πίστεως καί αγάπης.
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:I must not have been clear. I would think strictness would be the desirable option for the person entering the Church.
Aw, too bad the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council were wrong then!
Ya know what? It's all about the "canons" except when the canons disagree with you! You guys CRACK ME UP!!!!! 
In Christ,
LatinTrad
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath
LatinTrad,
Understand that the canons allow receiving people by "economia" as a way to open the door as wide as possible for heretics and schismatics, for which I was one myself, to enter into the Church. This is indeed the exception, not the rule.
There is also the way of "exactness".
My point to Mor Ephrem was that since he understands these definitions and the faith of the Church, why wouldn't he want to enter the Church by way of "exactness".
I think you are misunderstanding me, which is understandable as this can be very confusing and I don't have the most clear methods of expression.
Mor Ephrem wrote:Well, if strictness is the desirable option, why doesn't the council prescribe it for non-Chalcedonians? All it seems to require of non-Chalcedonians is a renunciation of errors, and then they can be admitted to Communion. Yet, there are people here who would insist that such need to be baptised. Why the disconnect?
Mor,
I think the consessions made for non-Chaldean and others is mainly for pastoral reasons. The Church, I think, felt that if being strict with everyone would turn some away that in those cases Christmation, or Confession of Faith may suffice. The canon I don't think rules out that if one wanted to be baptized that they can be. Maybe also that aspect of the canon refers to those who were originally baptised Orthodox, fell into schism and the repented.
Someone's either baptized or they're not. If they are baptized, it is a sacriledge to re-baptize them. If they are not baptized, then they msut be baptized before partaking of Holy Communion.
You cannot let an unbaptized person partake of Holy Communion "for pastoral reasons," no matter how nice you are.
The Holy and Sixth Ecumenical Council prescribed that Nestorians, Monophysites, and certain other heretics NOT be re-baptized. The only possible coherent explanation is that those groups of heretics had preserved valid baptism (for reasons listed above). This prescription clearly contradicts (and, IMHO trumps) the opinion of St. Basil posted elsewhere on the forum. And it should for you guys too since you think Councils are the highest authority in the Church.
Similarly, today, the Catholic Church does not re-baptize EO's, OO's or Nestorians who convert. Nor does she re-baptize Protestants from certain groups who did preserve valid baptism. She DOES re-baptize Mormons, however, as well as those Protestants who were not baptized according to the Trinitarian formula.
Look who's preserved the practice of the Early Councils!
In Christ,
LatinTrad
LatinTrad,
There is no baptism outside of the Church, heretics and schismatics have no grace and therefore can't impart what they don't have. Accepting heretics and schismatic into the Church through means other than baptism does not in any way, shape, or form validate heretical/schismatic 'baptisms.
Read these to understand better why this is:
The First Canonical Letter of St. Basil the Great (d. 378AD)
scroll down the page a little to get to this one
THE BASIS ON WHICH ECONOMY MAY BE USED
IN THE RECEPTION OF CONVERTS by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)
STRICTNESS AND ECONOMY by Protopresbyter George Grabbe
I will say again, just because the Church can receive heretics/schismatics through Chrismation/Confession does not prevent them from being baptized if they so choose.