Thoughts?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

Easy to say, but where's the evidence? Since the Apostolic Canons do not have one interpretation, and St.Cyprian's view is already acknowledged, what other Holy Fathers are you thinking of?

Through the canons of St. Basil the Great ALL the ecumenical councils, but more importantly the Church, do not accept the baptism of heretics or schismatics.

The exact same can be said of St. Cyprians council of Carthage, which was also accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

How someone would have the audacity to say 17th century Russian practice is "normal" is beyonf me. And to say the Church ever accepted the baptism of the heretics is say the OROS of 1755 and all of the Ecumenical Synods must be overturned. The author of this article has not one argument to support such a wild concept.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I would like to also point out that the 1983 Russian Anathema against ecumenism clearly cuts off those who maintain that heretic baptisms are effectual for salvation (And there is no in between, as if we can say there is an "imperfect" baptism; what a ridiculous concept that is. As if the Grace of God can be imperfectly or incompletley given. This is the language of ecumenists.)

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!

John Rigas recently wrote about this anathema (which by the way, fell on ROCORs heads the moment they professed Cyprianism):

The 1983 Anathema, against, all Ecumenists, I believe, separated ROCOR without question from those, who dabbled in prayers, joint services and or, gave quarters to heretical groups, claiming to be, The Church of CHRIST, the Una Sancta, or correct believing i.e. Catholic Church, as professed in the holy Creed of the Church.

This document leaves no room for those who profess, glibly try end runs around its definitive markers, as to who can be considered, correct believing and who is not. Whose belief is correct and whose is not. Whose Baptism is acceptable and whose is not.

We believe in One Church.

We believe in One Baptism, that, which only the Catholic (Orthodox)Church performs.

We believe in One LORD Jesus CHRIST, as confessed by the Church and not, as a carpenters son, or as a great person or as a prophet etc, as heretics of all stripes want us to believe and accept and pray with them and accept their false clergy as ministers of the Holy Spirit, who makes Its liturgists "a flame of Fire," for those who have eyes to see. Heretics, are not clergy of GOD, they are clergy for themselves and their group. Not real, not genuine, not "chosen" by GOD, to minister. They choose themselves, etc.

We believe in the Virginity of the Theotokos Maria, who begat, the Only begotten Son of GOD, ... Light of Light, True GOD, from True GOD ... do other groups believe like us Orthodox? No! None! We are separate from all of them.

Yes, all.

That's why the Anathemas, from time immemorial by the Church, to set the bounds, the borders, the perimeter of the Church for the Faithful to know, who is who sacramentally and to avoid being ensnared by the "False shepherds" who feign to be Orthodox, but are without the "garment of Light."

That the 1983 Anathema, set the ROCOR against all ecumenists and their heresies, is very clear. That is what Anathemas do, when they are invoked by "correct believing" hierarchs, just like conversely, Anathemas are worthless, when delivered by heretics, or not correct believing hierarchs. Example, are the various "Robber" hierarchs and their "robber" synods, where they, the Arians, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, Monothelytes, Iconoclasts, "anathematized" St. Athanasios the Great, St. Kyrill of Alexandria, St. John Damascinos, St. Photios the Great, St. Gregory Palamas and so on.

Today, is no different. The heretics are in positions of power ecclesiastically and daily, threaten and attempt to intimidate the Orthodox, by their proclaiming, Falsely, that they are Orthodox and that the Orthodox are not. The way we can tell the difference, is the same way we can differentiate between real Wine and Vinegar. They both look alike. They are in the same type bottles, same color, etc. Until you open both and taste, and then, it is obvious, which is which.

Today, if you want to know who is Orthodox and who is not, ask them what they think of the World Council of (heretical) Churches, and if they accept them as churches, and in formal prayer; if they, out of a false sense of modesty and politeness, reject the teachings of the Church, the Fathers, CHRIST, and mislead these pastors, by telling them that they are part of the Church and that their mysteries, even if they perform them like the Church, are acceptable and go on from there, to equate their pollutions with the Orthodox Church's Mysteries.

Those "Orthodox" clergy, regardless of their rank, who accept the above heretics, and participate with them in prayer, only pollute themselves and in time the pollution gets to be so poisonous, that it kills them, without them even getting wind of it. The Anathemas of the Church against the heretics, are promulgated, to safeguard the sheep from the wolves, inside the Church as well, as those, who try to breach the Gates of the Church,. This is what the LORD meant when he said, ... that the Gates of Hell (heresy) will not prevail against the Church..." even if these so called hierarchs, Bishops, Metropolitans (both Old and new Calendar, no exceptions here) or even Patriarchs, who openly or surreptitiously preach, support heretical views, or those who fight against the people of GOD, will not prevail in the final judgment, unless, unless, they repent of their heresy before death.
Do we Orthodox have any such people around? You ask yourselves and tell me!

[joasia]

From what I've read and heard about baptism, as long as a baptism is done with triple immersion (in the name of the Holy Trinity of course), even in a Uniate church, then it is considered a true baptism and should not be redone. But, I don't know how the Uniates do it. Do they baptize or sprinkle? In this case, it was a dying woman and I'm assuming St. John said what he did because the Uniates immerse.

But, in an everyday case of a person coming from the Uniate church to be with the Orthodox Church, Greek, Russian, Romanian etc., they should at least be chrismated and stay with the church. A person would have to believe that they will not go back to where they came from (faith-wise). In other words, they could not partake of Holy Communion with the Orthodox now and again, but also partake with the Uniates. The clergy are responsible for giving the Body and Blood of Christ correctly. Otherwise, anything goes.

The heretical method of christening by sprinkling on the head would be a clearer example of division. A person could not partake of the Body and Blood of Christ if they were only sprinkled.

Forgive me for being simple-minded, but I didn't read these articles that everyone is referring to. I don't know how the Russians accepted the West. But, so many mistakes have already been made by Russians and Greeks (I'm only familiar with these two groups)...it doesn't mean that it should continue.

And then there are those denominations that don't do anything. When it comes to baptism, there has to be a definite line of distinction.

Otherwise, what's the point of Christ giving the Apostles specific instructions on how we should be received into the church if we go doing it our own way and making that the habit?

[joasia]

OOD,

Do you believe that a new calendarist who was baptised with the triple immersion and chrismated should be re-baptised if he/she wanted to go to the old calendar church...and stay of course?

The person renounces the Ecumenist teachings and follows the true Orthodox teachings. Would he/she have to be re-baptised?

Believing in the ecumenical teachings and the subject of baptism, seem to be two different issues.

I agree that Ecumenism is heretical, as a teaching. But, if people from a new calendar church wanted to change to the old calendar, would they have to be re-baptised? Even though, they had the triple immersion done before?

[尼古拉前执事]

From what I've read and heard about baptism, as long as a baptism is done with triple immersion (in the name of the Holy Trinity of course), even in a Uniate church, then it is considered a true baptism and should not be redone.

Any baptism outside the Church is not considered a "true Baptism", but by economia, one with proper form can be received by Chrismation.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Do you believe that a new calendarist who was baptised with the triple immersion and chrismated should be re-baptised if he/she wanted to go to the old calendar church...and stay of course?

Baptism is a Mystery of the Church. There is therefore no such thing as a baptism outside of the Orthodox Church. Heretics no more have the Baptism of the Church than they have the Eucharist or Holy Chrism.

A person coming from Uniatism could be Baptised if the Bishop so chose. But if he had the proper form of an Orthodox Baptism, that is, it was done as the Orthodox with the Exorcism prayers, renouncing of heresies, ect. then they can and usually are received by Chrismation; where the meaningless form of their previous dipping is given meaning.

I agree that Ecumenism is heretical, as a teaching. But, if people from a new calendar church wanted to change to the old calendar, would they have to be re-baptised? Even though, they had the triple immersion done before?

They are rarley received by Baptism in our churches. Although our most recent convert from new-calendarism was Baptized since he was only "sprinkled" like a Latin by the MP in St. Petersburg (Fr. Nicholas, this was Olga's brother-in-law).

[joasia]

That's all that I'm saying...in the Ecumenist churches, they still perform the baptism as according to the Orthodox tradition. Well, depending on the individual priest. So it's important to verify if a "correct" baptism was performed. Sounds nit-picky, but, hey, that's me. But, when they come to the old calendar church: "where the meaningless form of their previous dipping is given meaning.", only Christmation is necessary. And their baptism is converted into a living salvation.

Any other denomination is COMPLETELY out of the Orthodox Church circle.