5. NonOrthodox Eucharist May be Invalid.ORTHODOXINFO considers it to be invalid
The Orthodox Church does not accept others baptism or any other sacrament. there are no mysteries outside the Orthodox Church. This topic is covered extensively on orthodoxinfo.com
Personally, I don't accept the Orthodoxinfo website's articles on baptism as reflecting an official position.
First, it condemns ecumenism as a heresy to such an extent that it strips "Catholics" and Oriental "Orthodox" of those names since: "The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought." (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/east_orth.aspx
Second, its articles on the Church Calendar describe the Calendar revision "as the first step in achieving a forced, false union of the Orthodox Church with non-Orthodox New Calendarist Christian bodies" and suggests Patriarch Metaxakis' illness to be one of the "evil fruits" of the calendar change." (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zervakos_calendar.aspx
The site explains that: "another jurisdiction, the "Orthodox Church in America," has introduced a change of calendar... There is only one Julian Calendar—not an "Original, "Old Style," "New Style," or "Revised"... This whole insidious process leads the faithful, often in trusting naively, further and further away from the Ark of Salvation... If the Orthodox Christians who presently use the Gregorian Adjustment continue to do so... They will have unity with nobody"
Third, other posters seem to disregard Orthodoxinfo's complete accuracy:
there are things are Orthodoxinfo that are good. When someone chooses to be in schism, I believe it affects everything they might write and therefore those writings necessitate a critical eye. However, there is a enough bad, and enough bad has come from Etna, that the average everyday person is rightly warned to read things there critically, unless they have such highly developed discernment that they can properly tell good from bad there--in a place where there is much bad, and much confusing stemming from much bad, I would discourage casual browsing there for information--but being directed there to read a specific article by your priest or something is good.
Is there a particular Orthodoxinfo article on Baptism you recommend?
Orthodoxinfo's main articles on baptism admit that they are in opposition to the positions of Fr. Hopko, Former St Vladimir's Seminary Dean George Florovsky, and Bishop Tikhon of the West (OCA) and attack these theologians using Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna from the "Synod in Resistance."
)Bishop Tikhon's Letter on "The Reception of Heretic Laity"
Bishop Tikhon explains the centuries-old Russian practice that previously chrismated Eastern Catholics do not need a second chrismation, and Roman Catholics and traditional Protestants need only Chrismation.
"The prescribed practice printed in our Service Books has been in force and active use for centuries, and it cannot be considered only a temporary episode of Economy in the life of the Church." Bishop Tikhon points out that St Alexis of Wilkes-barre turned to Orthodoxy because his Latin superiors rejected his priesthood, while the Russian church did and received him not as a mere layman.
Bishop Tikhon cites CANONS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, Bishop Nikodim of Dalmatia and Istria, Saint Petersburg Theological Academy, 1911:
Baptism as something instituted by Jesus Christ may be accomplished only in His Church and consequently only in the Church may it be correct and salvific; however, if other Christian communities located outside the Orthodox Church hold the conscious intention of bringing the newly-baptized into Christ's Church, i.e., have the intention to communicate to him Divine Grace through Baptism in order that he would become through the power of the Holy Spirit a true member of the Body of Christ and a reborn child of God, then this Baptism also may be considered effective insofar as it is done on the foundation of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for where such a Baptism is given and received, there it must operate with Grace and Christ's support cannot fail to be there.
Bishop Tikhon notes that rebaptism is exclusively the practice of the Greek Church, but "We are not in a position to express our judgment relative to this practice, since we don't know how it is that the Greek Church applies the first rule of Saint Basil to Roman Catholics."Anonymous Priest's Response
Orthodoxinfo posts an anonymous priest's response, who claims accepting Catholics without rebaptism is a medieval Russian innovation. He doesn't mention that the 3rd centiry church rejected rebaptism, as St Pope Stephen and the 3rd century book "On Rebaptism" explain.
The anonymous priest quotes Canon 46 of the Canons of the Apostles: "We order that any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed." However, it appears there is a debate over whether, as Pope Hormisdas (514-23) declared, the Canons of the Apostles are Apocryphal, or whetehr the church accepts them. ( http://mb-soft.com/believe/txud/counci48.htm
) Please, can you tell me definitively whether an ecumenical synod or council adopted all the Canons of the Apostles, or Canon 46?
Next, he cites "Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council", which uses confession of heresy for some heretics like Nestorians, chrismation for others like Arians, and rebaptism for others like single-immersion Eunomians. Do Protestants and Catholics use single dripping? If so, does the recommendation about rebaptizing Eunomians mean they should be rebaptized too?
He cites St Basil as saying: "Even if rebaptism is prohibited with you for the sake of some economy, as it is with the Romans, nevertheless let our word have the power of rejecting, to put it plainly, the baptism of such." The anonymous priest says that St Basil is talking about schismatics, and that St Basil's words should apply even stronger to heretics. If we accept that ROCOR was in schism in 1925-2007, would St Basil say that we don't rebaptize them merely as a matter of economy, but that we "reject, to put it plaintly, the baptism of such?"
The priest concludes with subjective feelings and miracles where Chrismated converts were rebaptized in Greek churches. Personally, I doubt I would have a good subjective feeling if I was rebaptized, and instead would feel that I was disobeying the my church's rules. And such rules are one of the main reasons I don't participate in Open Communion in the first place.EKONOMIA vs. AKRIBIA
a Russian Metropolitan recently said that the Russian Church accepted catholic sacraments however he was called a heretic by some of his parishners. the Church sometimes uses economia(a kind of flexibility or lenient exception) which in no way makes a practice normative and Orthodoxy also has akribia (strict letter of the law approach). As far as I know we are suppose to use akribia in such circumstances. But no one denies that the Church has the ability to accept the converts through Chrismation. So I think it is more of a question as what is the proper procedure instead of whether it is valid.
The anonymous priest agreed with ICXCNIKA that we should use AKRIBIA because we are not in an emergency situation. He pointed to St Basil's writings to say that we don't accept heretics' baptism as valid and conversion-by-Chrismation is EKONOMIA. Bishop Tikhon said that conversion-by-Chrismation must be AKRIBIA, because the Russian Church has been using it for centuries. This could allow that the heretics' baptism is itself valid, since conversion-by-Chrismation isn't out of mere leniency.The St Cyprian - Pope St Stephan Debate
Archimandrite Ambrosius writes that when the debate began:
Others maintained a more tolerant view, accepting as valid that baptism, which was performed by some heretics, since it was performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, and did not require that those coming into Orthodoxy from heresy be re-baptized. A stricter line was taken by Tertullian (himself a Montanist), St. Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian of Caesarea, and Elanus of Tarsus. St. Cyprian, a proponent of the strict line, convoked two councils in this matter (255-256) and insisted that heretics be received by no other way than baptism. St. Stephen, Pope of Rome (253-257) could be considered to hold a more tolerant view, and his position, according to the famous Hefele, was supported by Eastern bishops... Pope St. Stephen received penitent heretics with the laying of a bishop’s hand on their heads.
PETER THE ALEUT, is this an accurate description, including Firmilian's support in Cappadocia?
KING CLOVIS, You stated:
The Orthodox Church in different times and places has had several views on this issue (and that can be said for her on more than this issue!).
Can you please point to someplace the Orthodox church accepted nonOrthodox sacraments, inlcuding the Eucharist, as inherently valid? The 4th Century Council of Arles
Canon 8 of the Council of Arles says: "If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the Creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost he shall have hands laid upon him only so that he may receive the Holy Ghost."
At first glance this suggests that the heretic lacks the Holy Spirit, so the baptism must have lacked the Holy Spirit too. However, I also heard a view-- compatible with the idea that the Orthodox Church is the only Church-- saying something like the nonOrthodox baptism had grace or the Holy Spirit, but they did not remain because the person was outside the church. The rite brought the person into the church, but he didn't remain in the church. It might be like saying that you registered for a room in a hotel, but then told the hotel you wouldn't show up for the room. Perhaps the Eucharist could be seen in a similar way- joining the person to the church, but then the person leaves the church again immediately after.