Topic: Discussion on Ecumenism

[Fr. George]

So if I understand the force of that quotation, you would like us traditionalists to leave you ecumenists alone to administer your so-called 'mysteries' to the heretics, partaking together in damnation, rather than try to warn you of the spiritual peril you are in and urge you to return to the fold of the True Church? All right then.

Dear JG,  I am grateful for your concern.  It worries me that you fall under the 1983 condemnation of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece because you have fallen prey to the heresy of Old Calendarist Ecumenism.   

Are you saying you recognize the authority of that condemnation? I didn't know you were a Matthewite Old Calendarist! You should have said something before.

Either that was a sad attempt at humor, or you missed the point entirely.

[Jonathan Gress]

So if I understand the force of that quotation, you would like us traditionalists to leave you ecumenists alone to administer your so-called 'mysteries' to the heretics, partaking together in damnation, rather than try to warn you of the spiritual peril you are in and urge you to return to the fold of the True Church? All right then.

Dear JG,  I am grateful for your concern.  It worries me that you fall under the 1983 condemnation of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece because you have fallen prey to the heresy of Old Calendarist Ecumenism.   

Are you saying you recognize the authority of that condemnation? I didn't know you were a Matthewite Old Calendarist! You should have said something before.

Either that was a sad attempt at humor, or you missed the point entirely.

Oh Fr George, why don't you tell me what the point was, seeing as IH is clearly incapable of making it clear himself?

[Fr. George]

Oh Fr George, why don't you tell me what the point was, seeing as IH is clearly incapable of making it clear himself?

I actually thought his point was quite clear.

You've stated that his church should have condemned the statement from the Orthodox-RC Consultation, and by not condemning the statement they are complicit.  He then stated that your church should have either condemned or acknowledged the statement from the GOC of Greece that condemns Old Calendar Ecumenism, and by not either condemning nor acknowledging the statement you are complicit.

He's using the point (I presume) to show you that just as you likely don't support "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and yet you haven't come out and stated it publicly, he (and his diocese & archdiocese, etc.) may not support the Ecumenism present in the statement even though they haven't come out and stated it publicly.

More clear?

[Jonathan Gress]

Oh Fr George, why don't you tell me what the point was, seeing as IH is clearly incapable of making it clear himself?

I actually thought his point was quite clear.

You've stated that his church should have condemned the statement from the Orthodox-RC Consultation, and by not condemning the statement they are complicit.  He then stated that your church should have either condemned or acknowledged the statement from the GOC of Greece that condemns Old Calendar Ecumenism, and by not either condemning nor acknowledging the statement you are complicit.

He's using the point (I presume) to show you that just as you likely don't support "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and yet you haven't come out and stated it publicly, he (and his diocese & archdiocese, etc.) may not support the Ecumenism present in the statement even though they haven't come out and stated it publicly.

More clear?

A bit more clear, yes. I don't understand how failing to condemn the Matthewite statement makes us ecumenists, however. Since we are not in communion with them, what does it matter what they say? You, however, are in communion with those heretics who claimed that Orthodox and Catholic baptism are equally valid. How do you justify that?

[Fr. George]

A bit more clear, yes. I don't understand how failing to condemn the Matthewite statement makes us ecumenists, however. Since we are not in communion with them, what does it matter what they say?

He's not accusing you of being an Ecumenist - the document is about Old Calendarist Ecumenism, which you obviously don't believe in seeing as you are not in communion with them.  But this wasn't evident from your self-identification merely as "Greek Old Calendarist," so I think the assumption was that you were in communion with them.

You, however, are in communion with those heretics who claimed that Orthodox and Catholic baptism are equally valid. How do you justify that?

I let the bishops handle it until they enter heresy.  I have more important, local things to worry about than what a group of RC and Orthodox bishops think about baptism.

[Jonathan Gress]

A bit more clear, yes. I don't understand how failing to condemn the Matthewite statement makes us ecumenists, however. Since we are not in communion with them, what does it matter what they say?

He's not accusing you of being an Ecumenist - the document is about Old Calendarist Ecumenism, which you obviously don't believe in seeing as you are not in communion with them.  But this wasn't evident from your self-identification merely as "Greek Old Calendarist," so I think the assumption was that you were in communion with them.

You, however, are in communion with those heretics who claimed that Orthodox and Catholic baptism are equally valid. How do you justify that?

I let the bishops handle it until they enter heresy.  I have more important, local things to worry about than what a group of RC and Orthodox bishops think about communion.

All right, it was a misunderstanding about the difference between my jurisdiction and the Matthewites. I thought there was some confusion here.

Wait a minute. You let the bishops, who by your admission are already in heresy, handle their own heresy? OK, well you and the other new calendarists have tried this tactic for about 80 years now, with what results? Hmmm...

If you KNOW that bishops in your church are heretical, you CAN'T justify being in communion with them. Either you have to deny they are heretics, or you have to break communion and join those bishops who are not heretical or in communion with heresy. There's no middle ground here.

[Fr. George]

Wait a minute. You let the bishops, who by your admission are already in heresy, handle their own heresy?

Already in heresy how?  You are assuming a fact not in evidence, and certainly not formally proclaimed.
(I know what your answer to this is - you don't have to respond if you don't want to.)

[Jonathan Gress]

Wait a minute. You let the bishops, who by your admission are already in heresy, handle their own heresy?

Already in heresy how?  You are assuming a fact not in evidence, and certainly not formally proclaimed.
(I know what your answer to this is - you don't have to respond if you don't want to.)

Well what counts as 'formally proclaimed'? And where does it say that a heresy has to be 'formally proclaimed' to be a heresy? Can a bishop 'informally' proclaim a heresy? If a bishop says something heretical, and doesn't retract it, or prays with a heretic, then that's all you need.

The bishops of your church and every church in SCOBA are in heresy because their churches are members of the WCC, a heretical organization. You can see that it is heretical if you read the 'assumptions' in the Toronto statement, which is gives the basic principles of membership. Or how about when the EP invited the Pope to the Phanar in 2006 and prayed with him, which is a clear heretical act? No one broke communion with him over it, and he has never repented of it. I can go on. The evidence is all there; you just choose to ignore it.

The reason I said you had already admitted it is because you said 'I don't have time to worry about what some RC and Orthodox bishops think about communion'. I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, but it certainly implies some Orthodox bishops you know of have made heretical claims about communion, which are of no concern to you because you have better things to worry about than your spiritual welfare, apparently. I did give an example of a heretical statement about heterodox baptism. This statement is now ten years old and has never been condemned by those bishops of yours, which they surely would have done long ago if they were truly Orthodox. Nothing on the SCOBA website indicates that the errors in the document have ever been addressed. That means to me that the bishops are complicit in the heresy.

[Fr. George]

The reason I said you had already admitted it is because you said 'I don't have time to worry about what some RC and Orthodox bishops think about communion'. I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, but it certainly implies some Orthodox bishops you know of have made heretical claims about communion, which are of no concern to you because you have better things to worry about than your spiritual welfare, apparently. 

Actually it means that I had typed the word "communion" instead of "baptism" because I had typed the word "communion" twice and read it twice and mixed myself up.  I'll correct it.

[Jonathan Gress]

The reason I said you had already admitted it is because you said 'I don't have time to worry about what some RC and Orthodox bishops think about communion'. I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, but it certainly implies some Orthodox bishops you know of have made heretical claims about communion, which are of no concern to you because you have better things to worry about than your spiritual welfare, apparently. 

Actually it means that I had typed the word "communion" instead of "baptism" because I had typed the word "communion" twice and read it twice and mixed myself up.  I'll correct it.

OH I see. Well scratch that part of my response, then. The part about baptism still applies, though!

[PeterTheAleut]

I came across this interesting bit in Bishop Eucharist Church. They were discussing the significance of Novatianist baptism. I've bolded an interesting sentence.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/kef2_2.htm

Fortunately, however, there is preserved a contemporary work by an anonymous African Bishop entitled De Rebaptismate, written probably around 256,305 which sets out in detail the arguments against Cyprian's views on baptism. This text expounds not so much the teaching on the Church as that on the sacraments, but it reveals the writer's ecclesiological principles. The writer accepts that there is only one Church outside which the Holy Spirit is not. But he maintains that baptism is performed by Christ at the invocation of His name. Starting from this premise, this writer holds that when the name of the Lord is invoked, even by those who are outside the Catholic Church, in the course of a baptism, the invocation operates in such a way that the baptism which thus takes place is authentic. Exactly what value such a baptism has is not defined by this author. It seems, however, that he too retains many doubts as to its efficacity, since he says that if someone thus baptized outside the Catholic Church dies a schismatic, in other words before he repents and returns to the Catholic Church, his baptism is of no significance for his salvation.306

These views can be taken as those of the Church of Rome and her Bishop Stephen because they come to the conclusion that the rebaptism of those returning to the Catholic Church is not required which is exactly as Stephen of Rome maintained.

Apparently this was the Latin Church view in the Cyprian era. Schismatic baptism is efficacious, but only if you return to the Catholic Church. If you update this by about 1700 years it translates to, "of course, we may recognize your non-Orthodox baptism... if you become Orthodox."

That's an interesting piece of evidence for what SOME Latin bishops taught at the time of Cyprian. Obviously, Cyprian represented another position, a position, moreover, that is actually in accord with the teaching of the universal Church.

But how do you know that it's Bishop St. Cyprian's position that's in accord with the teaching of the universal Church?  At the time of his argument with Pope St. Stephen, Rome was still very much orthodox and claimed as her authority the tradition handed them by the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

[PeterTheAleut]

Wait a minute. You let the bishops, who by your admission are already in heresy, handle their own heresy?

Already in heresy how?  You are assuming a fact not in evidence, and certainly not formally proclaimed.
(I know what your answer to this is - you don't have to respond if you don't want to.)

Well what counts as 'formally proclaimed'? And where does it say that a heresy has to be 'formally proclaimed' to be a heresy? Can a bishop 'informally' proclaim a heresy? If a bishop says something heretical, and doesn't retract it, or prays with a heretic, then that's all you need.

The bishops of your church and every church in SCOBA are in heresy because their churches are members of the WCC, a heretical organization. You can see that it is heretical if you read the 'assumptions' in the Toronto statement, which is gives the basic principles of membership. Or how about when the EP invited the Pope to the Phanar in 2006 and prayed with him, which is a clear heretical act? No one broke communion with him over it, and he has never repented of it. I can go on. The evidence is all there; you just choose to ignore it.

We've argued this before with you and shown you that there's more to this canard than simply what you choose to see.  You might therefore want to adopt a different tactic than to accuse us of ignoring the evidence.

[Jonathan Gress]

Wait a minute. You let the bishops, who by your admission are already in heresy, handle their own heresy?

Already in heresy how?  You are assuming a fact not in evidence, and certainly not formally proclaimed.
(I know what your answer to this is - you don't have to respond if you don't want to.)

Well what counts as 'formally proclaimed'? And where does it say that a heresy has to be 'formally proclaimed' to be a heresy? Can a bishop 'informally' proclaim a heresy? If a bishop says something heretical, and doesn't retract it, or prays with a heretic, then that's all you need.

The bishops of your church and every church in SCOBA are in heresy because their churches are members of the WCC, a heretical organization. You can see that it is heretical if you read the 'assumptions' in the Toronto statement, which is gives the basic principles of membership. Or how about when the EP invited the Pope to the Phanar in 2006 and prayed with him, which is a clear heretical act? No one broke communion with him over it, and he has never repented of it. I can go on. The evidence is all there; you just choose to ignore it.

We've argued this before with you and shown you that there's more to this canard than simply what you choose to see.  You might therefore want to adopt a different tactic than to accuse us of ignoring the evidence.

Which canard? About the Toronto statement or the Pope's visit?

If I remember right, the objection about the Toronto statement is that there is a part of it which seems to be compatible with Orthodoxy, namely where it specifies that the WCC is not a 'superchurch'. That part is fine on its own. The problem is there's this other part, the 'assumptions', where it says that members must understand that every other member is a part of the Body of Christ. That is not compatible with Orthodoxy, and you can't claim that it is somehow canceled out by the part that can be made compatible with Orthodox teaching. Members of the WCC subscribe to the whole statement, both good parts and bad.

As for the Pope's visit, if you don't think that's something to worry about, I honestly don't know what would worry you. The Athonite fathers, even those who commemorate the Patriarch, thought it was bad enough to warrant protesting letters.

[Jonathan Gress]

I came across this interesting bit in Bishop Eucharist Church. They were discussing the significance of Novatianist baptism. I've bolded an interesting sentence.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/kef2_2.htm

Fortunately, however, there is preserved a contemporary work by an anonymous African Bishop entitled De Rebaptismate, written probably around 256,305 which sets out in detail the arguments against Cyprian's views on baptism. This text expounds not so much the teaching on the Church as that on the sacraments, but it reveals the writer's ecclesiological principles. The writer accepts that there is only one Church outside which the Holy Spirit is not. But he maintains that baptism is performed by Christ at the invocation of His name. Starting from this premise, this writer holds that when the name of the Lord is invoked, even by those who are outside the Catholic Church, in the course of a baptism, the invocation operates in such a way that the baptism which thus takes place is authentic. Exactly what value such a baptism has is not defined by this author. It seems, however, that he too retains many doubts as to its efficacity, since he says that if someone thus baptized outside the Catholic Church dies a schismatic, in other words before he repents and returns to the Catholic Church, his baptism is of no significance for his salvation.306

These views can be taken as those of the Church of Rome and her Bishop Stephen because they come to the conclusion that the rebaptism of those returning to the Catholic Church is not required which is exactly as Stephen of Rome maintained.

Apparently this was the Latin Church view in the Cyprian era. Schismatic baptism is efficacious, but only if you return to the Catholic Church. If you update this by about 1700 years it translates to, "of course, we may recognize your non-Orthodox baptism... if you become Orthodox."

That's an interesting piece of evidence for what SOME Latin bishops taught at the time of Cyprian. Obviously, Cyprian represented another position, a position, moreover, that is actually in accord with the teaching of the universal Church.

But how do you know that it's Bishop St. Cyprian's position that's in accord with the teaching of the universal Church?  At the time of his argument with Pope St. Stephen, Rome was still very much orthodox and claimed as her authority the tradition handed them by the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

This discussion by Met Hierotheos ought to clarify the Church's teaching:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx

[Jonathan Gress]

Something by the new calendarist Fr Theodore Zisis on the Pope's 2006 visit:

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/8AC792C1.en.aspx

[Irish Hermit]

[Oh Fr George, why don't you tell me what the point was, seeing as IH is clearly incapable of making it clear himself?

HUH?!    The 1983 condemnation of Old Calendarist Ecumenism is quite clear and it does not need me to clarify it for you.

The Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece counts you as an ecumenist.

[Jonathan Gress]

[Oh Fr George, why don't you tell me what the point was, seeing as IH is clearly incapable of making it clear himself?

HUH?!    The 1983 condemnation of Old Calendarist Ecumenism is quite clear and it does not need me to clarify it for you.

The Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece counts you as an ecumenist.

I think there's some confusion or misunderstanding here. This so-called GOC of Greece represents only the Matthewite faction, which I do not belong to. Why should I care what they say any more than you? They think you're an ecumenist, too, and I presume you don't lose sleep over that.

[PeterTheAleut]

I came across this interesting bit in Bishop Eucharist Church. They were discussing the significance of Novatianist baptism. I've bolded an interesting sentence.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/kef2_2.htm

Fortunately, however, there is preserved a contemporary work by an anonymous African Bishop entitled De Rebaptismate, written probably around 256,305 which sets out in detail the arguments against Cyprian's views on baptism. This text expounds not so much the teaching on the Church as that on the sacraments, but it reveals the writer's ecclesiological principles. The writer accepts that there is only one Church outside which the Holy Spirit is not. But he maintains that baptism is performed by Christ at the invocation of His name. Starting from this premise, this writer holds that when the name of the Lord is invoked, even by those who are outside the Catholic Church, in the course of a baptism, the invocation operates in such a way that the baptism which thus takes place is authentic. Exactly what value such a baptism has is not defined by this author. It seems, however, that he too retains many doubts as to its efficacity, since he says that if someone thus baptized outside the Catholic Church dies a schismatic, in other words before he repents and returns to the Catholic Church, his baptism is of no significance for his salvation.306

These views can be taken as those of the Church of Rome and her Bishop Stephen because they come to the conclusion that the rebaptism of those returning to the Catholic Church is not required which is exactly as Stephen of Rome maintained.

Apparently this was the Latin Church view in the Cyprian era. Schismatic baptism is efficacious, but only if you return to the Catholic Church. If you update this by about 1700 years it translates to, "of course, we may recognize your non-Orthodox baptism... if you become Orthodox."

That's an interesting piece of evidence for what SOME Latin bishops taught at the time of Cyprian. Obviously, Cyprian represented another position, a position, moreover, that is actually in accord with the teaching of the universal Church.

But how do you know that it's Bishop St. Cyprian's position that's in accord with the teaching of the universal Church?  At the time of his argument with Pope St. Stephen, Rome was still very much orthodox and claimed as her authority the tradition handed them by the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

This discussion by Met Hierotheos ought to clarify the Church's teaching:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx

You miss my point, though.  How did our current teaching on baptism and the sacraments become Church teaching, especially considering that it was not universal to the Church of St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Stephen of Rome?  At that time, it appears that St. Cyprian and a Firmilian of Asia Minor preached an Eastern view of baptism that is now our [Eastern] Church teaching (a teaching later supported by the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons, a 4th century Eastern document we believe to represent the traditions of the Apostles).  Yet St. Stephen taught a different idea that he claimed was passed on to the Church of Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul themselves.  Which side has faithfully preserved the traditions of the Apostles?  What evidence can you provide to support your argument?

[Irish Hermit]

[Oh Fr George, why don't you tell me what the point was, seeing as IH is clearly incapable of making it clear himself?

HUH?!    The 1983 condemnation of Old Calendarist Ecumenism is quite clear and it does not need me to clarify it for you.

The Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece counts you as an ecumenist.

I think there's some confusion or misunderstanding here. This so-called GOC of Greece represents only the Matthewite faction, which I do not belong to. Why should I care what they say any more than you? They think you're an ecumenist, too, and I presume you don't lose sleep over that.

Is the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece viewed by your Church as part of the True Church?  Or do you condemn it as a sect without episcopacy and baptism?

If you accept it as part of the True Orthodox Church you fall under the 1983 condemnation of Old Calendarist Ecumenism.

[PeterTheAleut]

Wait a minute. You let the bishops, who by your admission are already in heresy, handle their own heresy?

Already in heresy how?  You are assuming a fact not in evidence, and certainly not formally proclaimed.
(I know what your answer to this is - you don't have to respond if you don't want to.)

Well what counts as 'formally proclaimed'? And where does it say that a heresy has to be 'formally proclaimed' to be a heresy? Can a bishop 'informally' proclaim a heresy? If a bishop says something heretical, and doesn't retract it, or prays with a heretic, then that's all you need.

The bishops of your church and every church in SCOBA are in heresy because their churches are members of the WCC, a heretical organization. You can see that it is heretical if you read the 'assumptions' in the Toronto statement, which is gives the basic principles of membership. Or how about when the EP invited the Pope to the Phanar in 2006 and prayed with him, which is a clear heretical act? No one broke communion with him over it, and he has never repented of it. I can go on. The evidence is all there; you just choose to ignore it.

We've argued this before with you and shown you that there's more to this canard than simply what you choose to see.  You might therefore want to adopt a different tactic than to accuse us of ignoring the evidence.

Which canard? About the Toronto statement or the Pope's visit?

Here's the thread where we previously argued about the Toronto Statement of the WCC:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22701.0.html

[ozgeorge]

Would the members of the genuine Orthodox Church to please stand up.

[witega]

witega:

If your bishops disagree with the heresy of this statement, why do they plaster it on their website without a word of critique or condemnation? The SCOBA website is the official voice of the official Orthodox bishops of North America. They have not uttered a word of condemnation, meaning they are complicit in this heresy. I have not borne false witness; it is you who blind yourself to the evidence before your own eyes.

If SCOBA is 'the official voice of the official Orthodox bishops of North America' then there wouldn't be constant discussion about what can be done to make unite the American jurisdictions into one administrative church. SCOBA is a consultative body that has NO authority over the separate synods which send representatives to it. As to why the document is on the site, it's because the page is a document archive of all the documents produced by the commission. In order to get to it on the SCOBA site, you have to first go to the 'Resources' page (http://www.scoba.us/resources.html) which leads off with the caveat:

All texts promulgated on this website are not necessarily official positions of the Orthodox Church or of SCOBA

from that page you can click through to 'The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation' page (http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic.html) which contains some 25+ documents produced by the commission (running back to 1969) in addition to the one you link to. And again the documents are *headed* by the disclaimer I already quoted for you:

The members of national bilateral dialogue commissions are sanctioned by the hierarchies of the two churches to examine divisive issues, and to make recommendations regarding ways to overcome them. As such, the agreed statements are issued on the authority of the dialogue commission itself, and do not bind the authorities of either church

It is possible you got the direct link from elsewhere and hadn't previously seen the disclaimers. That, after having the disclaimer pointed out to you, you would still claim that the document is an official position of any Orthodox synod, indicates that you are indeed guilty of willful slander and false witness.

[Irish Hermit]

The members of national bilateral dialogue commissions are sanctioned by the hierarchies of the two churches to examine divisive issues, and to make recommendations regarding ways to overcome them. As such, the agreed statements are issued on the authority of the dialogue commission itself, and do not bind the authorities of either church

It is possible you got the direct link from elsewhere and hadn't previously seen the disclaimers. That, after having the disclaimer pointed out to you, you would still claim that the document is an official position of any Orthodox synod, indicates that you are indeed guilty of willful slander and false witness.

The baptismal document and others from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation are also presented on the official Roman Catholic site in the US

http://www.usccb.org/seia/orthodox_index.shtml

By Jonathan's idiosyncratic logic that means that the Catholic bishops accept denial of their baptism and denial of their eucharist.   

It's a funny world!   

[observer]

Would the sophists please sit down

[Jonathan Gress]

I came across this interesting bit in Bishop Eucharist Church. They were discussing the significance of Novatianist baptism. I've bolded an interesting sentence.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/kef2_2.htm

Fortunately, however, there is preserved a contemporary work by an anonymous African Bishop entitled De Rebaptismate, written probably around 256,305 which sets out in detail the arguments against Cyprian's views on baptism. This text expounds not so much the teaching on the Church as that on the sacraments, but it reveals the writer's ecclesiological principles. The writer accepts that there is only one Church outside which the Holy Spirit is not. But he maintains that baptism is performed by Christ at the invocation of His name. Starting from this premise, this writer holds that when the name of the Lord is invoked, even by those who are outside the Catholic Church, in the course of a baptism, the invocation operates in such a way that the baptism which thus takes place is authentic. Exactly what value such a baptism has is not defined by this author. It seems, however, that he too retains many doubts as to its efficacity, since he says that if someone thus baptized outside the Catholic Church dies a schismatic, in other words before he repents and returns to the Catholic Church, his baptism is of no significance for his salvation.306

These views can be taken as those of the Church of Rome and her Bishop Stephen because they come to the conclusion that the rebaptism of those returning to the Catholic Church is not required which is exactly as Stephen of Rome maintained.

Apparently this was the Latin Church view in the Cyprian era. Schismatic baptism is efficacious, but only if you return to the Catholic Church. If you update this by about 1700 years it translates to, "of course, we may recognize your non-Orthodox baptism... if you become Orthodox."

That's an interesting piece of evidence for what SOME Latin bishops taught at the time of Cyprian. Obviously, Cyprian represented another position, a position, moreover, that is actually in accord with the teaching of the universal Church.

But how do you know that it's Bishop St. Cyprian's position that's in accord with the teaching of the universal Church?  At the time of his argument with Pope St. Stephen, Rome was still very much orthodox and claimed as her authority the tradition handed them by the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

This discussion by Met Hierotheos ought to clarify the Church's teaching:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx

You miss my point, though.  How did our current teaching on baptism and the sacraments become Church teaching, especially considering that it was not universal to the Church of St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Stephen of Rome?  At that time, it appears that St. Cyprian and a Firmilian of Asia Minor preached an Eastern view of baptism that is now our [Eastern] Church teaching (a teaching later supported by the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons, a 4th century Eastern document we believe to represent the traditions of the Apostles).  Yet St. Stephen taught a different idea that he claimed was passed on to the Church of Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul themselves.  Which side has faithfully preserved the traditions of the Apostles?  What evidence can you provide to support your argument?

Well if I believed the West had faithfully preserved the right teaching on baptism, with their doctrine of ex opere operato, then I would be a Catholic. As it is, I am Eastern Orthodox. I don't feel it's appropriate to debate the teaching on baptism with other Orthodox, since we should all be agreed on what the Orthodox teaching is. If you don't agree with the Orthodox teaching, then you should change churches.

That being said, here is another patristic witness for the Orthodox doctrine of baptism:

"There are many other heresies, too, which use the names only [of the Trinity], but not in the right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed." St Athanasius, Second Discourse against the Arians

St Paul also says there is 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' in the epistle to the Ephesians. I understand this to mean that faith and the mystery of baptism are inseparable, and that by faith is meant Orthodox faith.

[Jonathan Gress]

witega:

If your bishops disagree with the heresy of this statement, why do they plaster it on their website without a word of critique or condemnation? The SCOBA website is the official voice of the official Orthodox bishops of North America. They have not uttered a word of condemnation, meaning they are complicit in this heresy. I have not borne false witness; it is you who blind yourself to the evidence before your own eyes.

If SCOBA is 'the official voice of the official Orthodox bishops of North America' then there wouldn't be constant discussion about what can be done to make unite the American jurisdictions into one administrative church. SCOBA is a consultative body that has NO authority over the separate synods which send representatives to it. As to why the document is on the site, it's because the page is a document archive of all the documents produced by the commission. In order to get to it on the SCOBA site, you have to first go to the 'Resources' page (http://www.scoba.us/resources.html) which leads off with the caveat:

All texts promulgated on this website are not necessarily official positions of the Orthodox Church or of SCOBA

from that page you can click through to 'The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation' page (http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic.html) which contains some 25+ documents produced by the commission (running back to 1969) in addition to the one you link to. And again the documents are *headed* by the disclaimer I already quoted for you:

The members of national bilateral dialogue commissions are sanctioned by the hierarchies of the two churches to examine divisive issues, and to make recommendations regarding ways to overcome them. As such, the agreed statements are issued on the authority of the dialogue commission itself, and do not bind the authorities of either church

It is possible you got the direct link from elsewhere and hadn't previously seen the disclaimers. That, after having the disclaimer pointed out to you, you would still claim that the document is an official position of any Orthodox synod, indicates that you are indeed guilty of willful slander and false witness.

Well this is where I have to say I don't recognize a distinction between official and unofficial heresy, and neither do the Fathers. This document on the validity of Catholic baptism is not some neutral theological speculation, as you seem to think. It is downright heresy, and an Orthodox bishop should know that it's heresy. Therefore your bishops shouldn't be putting such heretical documents on their site at all, or if they do, they should make it clear they actively oppose what is contained. The disclaimer you keep pointing out to me only says they do not necessarily approve of what is listed there. It doesn't say they disapprove. They might approve of all of it, as far as the disclaimer indicates.

They should have made known their opposition to the heretical commission that produced this statements and enacted appropriate censure against the 'theologians' who drafted it. Only after such unambiguous action would this possibly cease to be a scandal. Therefore I stand by my claim that your bishops are in heresy, since their silence in the face of these heretics indicates consent.

[Irish Hermit]

Well if I believed the West had faithfully preserved the right teaching on baptism, with their doctrine of ex opere operato, then I would be a Catholic. As it is, I am Eastern Orthodox.

I am Eastern Orthodox and do not see you as my brother.  How could I?  Your Church denies that I am a priest.  You deny that our bishops are bishops.  You deny that our people are baptized; we are unbaptized pagans in your eyes. You deny that we receive the Body and Blood of the Saviour in the Holy Mysteries.  You deny that every Eastern Orthodox Church is genuine.

We know that you are a member of a Greek Old Calendarist Church group but you have turned your back on the Eastern Orthodox.

[Irish Hermit]

[They should have made known their opposition to the heretical commission that produced this statements and enacted appropriate censure against the 'theologians' who drafted it. Only after such unambiguous action would this possibly cease to be a scandal. Therefore I stand by my claim that your bishops are in heresy, since their silence in the face of these heretics indicates consent.

Your Bishops have never issued any statement contradicting the 1983 statement from the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece that your Bishops are heretical.

Your Bishops continue to accept the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece as a true Orthodox Church and you accept their baptism as authentic and grace-filled.

So we see that two parts of the True Orthodox Church are in conflict.  One part of the Church has declared another part heretical!   Your Bishops' silence in face of the charge of heresy against them indicates consent.

[Jonathan Gress]

[Oh Fr George, why don't you tell me what the point was, seeing as IH is clearly incapable of making it clear himself?

HUH?!    The 1983 condemnation of Old Calendarist Ecumenism is quite clear and it does not need me to clarify it for you.

The Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece counts you as an ecumenist.

I think there's some confusion or misunderstanding here. This so-called GOC of Greece represents only the Matthewite faction, which I do not belong to. Why should I care what they say any more than you? They think you're an ecumenist, too, and I presume you don't lose sleep over that.

Is the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece viewed by your Church as part of the True Church?  Or do you condemn it as a sect without episcopacy and baptism?

If you accept it as part of the True Orthodox Church you fall under the 1983 condemnation of Old Calendarist Ecumenism.

It depends on whether the Matthewites are truly in schism or not. If we believed they were truly schismatic, then we would not accept their mysteries. I'm not sure what our position is at the moment. I think, at least, that we do believe they are schismatic and that we cannot receive communion from them, though they wouldn't let us even if we wanted to. But we at least used to pursue a dialog with them to see what actions could be taken to overcome the schism. It's a bit different from the ecumenist dialogs you're familiar with because there, it is assumed even before the dialog begins that the heterodox party is already part of the Church in some way, through baptism or belief in the Trinity or whatever (see the assumptions of the WCC Toronto statement for an example). Also, ecumenist dialog has to deal with doctrinal divisions, and we have no doctrinal divisions with the Matthewites, only administrative ones, namely the validity of their hierarchy and ordinations with respect to fulfilling the conditions ROCA had set in 1971 for normalizing their consecrations.

The same more or less applies to the other TOC divisions. The reason one can talk at all about unity despite divisions arises from the uncertainty regarding the canonicity of this or that jurisdiction. It's not as if we can tell out of all the Russian TOC jurisdictions which are canonical and which aren't, for example, so we haven't said anything at all about which of them have grace and which do not. The problem can only be resolved by working over each case individually. In terms of the Greek jurisdictions, I believe we are pretty clear that we consider ourselves to be the only canonical jurisdiction. I'm getting this from an interview Abp Chrysostomos II gave back around 2002/2003, which you can find on the website www.ecclesiagoc.gr

[Jonathan Gress]

[They should have made known their opposition to the heretical commission that produced this statements and enacted appropriate censure against the 'theologians' who drafted it. Only after such unambiguous action would this possibly cease to be a scandal. Therefore I stand by my claim that your bishops are in heresy, since their silence in the face of these heretics indicates consent.

Your Bishops have never issued any statement contradicting the 1983 statement from the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece that your Bishops are heretical.

Your Bishops continue to accept the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece as a true Orthodox Church and you accept their baptism as authentic and grace-filled.

So we see that two parts of the True Orthodox Church are in conflict.  One part of the Church has declared another part heretical!   Your Bishops' silence in face of the charge of heresy against them indicates consent.

Your position is totally different from mine. You are in communion with those heretics that produced that statement about heterodox baptism; I am not, nor am I in communion with the Matthewites or other jurisdictions we view as schismatic.

[Jonathan Gress]

Well if I believed the West had faithfully preserved the right teaching on baptism, with their doctrine of ex opere operato, then I would be a Catholic. As it is, I am Eastern Orthodox.

I am Eastern Orthodox and do not see you as my brother.  How could I?  Your Church denies that I am a priest.  You deny that our bishops are bishops.  You deny that our people are baptized; we are unbaptized pagans in your eyes. You deny that we receive the Body and Blood of the Saviour in the Holy Mysteries.  You deny that every Eastern Orthodox Church is genuine.

We know that you are a member of a Greek Old Calendarist Church group but you have turned your back on the Eastern Orthodox.

Are you saying you would believe I am Orthodox if I believed you were Orthodox? If a Catholic ecumenist claimed you as a brother, following his legalistic understanding of sacraments performed outside the Church, would you then be compelled to claim him as a brother in return?

My response of course is that my church is the true Eastern Orthodox church and it is your jurisdiction that has turned its back. So where does that leave us?

[Irish Hermit]

[They should have made known their opposition to the heretical commission that produced this statements and enacted appropriate censure against the 'theologians' who drafted it. Only after such unambiguous action would this possibly cease to be a scandal. Therefore I stand by my claim that your bishops are in heresy, since their silence in the face of these heretics indicates consent.

Your Bishops have never issued any statement contradicting the 1983 statement from the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece that your Bishops are heretical.

Your Bishops continue to accept the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece as a true Orthodox Church and you accept their baptism as authentic and grace-filled.

So we see that two parts of the True Orthodox Church are in conflict.  One part of the Church has declared another part heretical!   Your Bishops' silence in face of the charge of heresy against them indicates consent.

Your position is totally different from mine. You are in communion with those heretics that produced that statement about heterodox baptism; I am not, nor am I in communion with the Matthewites or other jurisdictions we view as schismatic.

I notice that you are avoiding the question - is the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece a part of the True Orthoodx Church?  Are its baptism and its other sacraments grace-fillled?  Or do your Bishops count them as meaningless as those of the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

[Jonathan Gress]

Wait a minute. You let the bishops, who by your admission are already in heresy, handle their own heresy?

Already in heresy how?  You are assuming a fact not in evidence, and certainly not formally proclaimed.
(I know what your answer to this is - you don't have to respond if you don't want to.)

Well what counts as 'formally proclaimed'? And where does it say that a heresy has to be 'formally proclaimed' to be a heresy? Can a bishop 'informally' proclaim a heresy? If a bishop says something heretical, and doesn't retract it, or prays with a heretic, then that's all you need.

The bishops of your church and every church in SCOBA are in heresy because their churches are members of the WCC, a heretical organization. You can see that it is heretical if you read the 'assumptions' in the Toronto statement, which is gives the basic principles of membership. Or how about when the EP invited the Pope to the Phanar in 2006 and prayed with him, which is a clear heretical act? No one broke communion with him over it, and he has never repented of it. I can go on. The evidence is all there; you just choose to ignore it.

We've argued this before with you and shown you that there's more to this canard than simply what you choose to see.  You might therefore want to adopt a different tactic than to accuse us of ignoring the evidence.

Which canard? About the Toronto statement or the Pope's visit?

Here's the thread where we previously argued about the Toronto Statement of the WCC:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22701.0.html

Thanks for the link. I see that there seemed to be fundamentally different ways of interpreting WCC membership. You believe, I think, that because the Orthodox bishops whose jurisdictions are in the WCC have claimed elsewhere to be following the traditional teaching on the boundaries of the Church, say in their guidelines on ecumenism which can be found on the SCOBA website, that must mean that we can ignore the implications of their WCC membership vis-a-vis the heretical teachings contained in founding documents of the WCC like the Toronto statement.

I can't see, however, how you can be a full WCC member and not subscribe to those teachings. The Orthodox members of the WCC are not mere observers, with no status within the WCC. They are full members, and take part in drafting the common statements and in the assemblies. The SCOBA ecumenism guidelines, despite their professions of Orthodoxy, say that they also consider the Toronto statement to be the statement of the principles of WCC membership, which includes them. They also state that they consider documents like the 1920 encyclical to be 'founding' documents of the ecumenical movement, i.e. documents they consider models of Orthodox ecumenism. At any rate I could not in good conscience join a jurisdiction that was in the WCC because I know perfectly well what the founding principles of the WCC are and I knew that if entered into communion with WCC members, I would be subject to those principles, too.

So we can certainly conclude that they are at the very least contradicting themselves. At one moment they can be Orthodox; at another, heretics. But in my understanding of the history of the Church, prevarication is not considered an acceptable substitute for unwavering Orthodoxy.

[Jonathan Gress]

[They should have made known their opposition to the heretical commission that produced this statements and enacted appropriate censure against the 'theologians' who drafted it. Only after such unambiguous action would this possibly cease to be a scandal. Therefore I stand by my claim that your bishops are in heresy, since their silence in the face of these heretics indicates consent.

Your Bishops have never issued any statement contradicting the 1983 statement from the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece that your Bishops are heretical.

Your Bishops continue to accept the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece as a true Orthodox Church and you accept their baptism as authentic and grace-filled.

So we see that two parts of the True Orthodox Church are in conflict.  One part of the Church has declared another part heretical!   Your Bishops' silence in face of the charge of heresy against them indicates consent.

Your position is totally different from mine. You are in communion with those heretics that produced that statement about heterodox baptism; I am not, nor am I in communion with the Matthewites or other jurisdictions we view as schismatic.

I notice that you are avoiding the question - is the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece a part of the True Orthoodx Church?  Are its baptism and its other sacraments grace-fillled?  Or do your Bishops count them as meaningless as those of the Eastern Orthodox Churches?

I told you in another post. As far as I know, the 'GOC of Greece', i.e. the Matthewite faction, is not part of the True Church.

How about you come clean about how you can in good conscience remain in communion with those who manifestly believe in different doctrines from you, e.g. the Ecumenical Patriarch who no longer believes the Pope is a heretic, or the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria who no longer believe the non-Chalcedonians are heretics? You like to point out the contradictions in my church, while comfortably ignoring the much greater contradictions in your own.

[Irish Hermit]

You like to point out the contradictions in my church, while comfortably ignoring the much greater contradictions in your own.

I point them out because it is a frequent tactic of people who members of various newly founded Churches - GOCs and TOCs and WOCs - to point out discrepancies within the Eastern Orthodox Churches while covering up their own.  For example how many GOCs will admit that the 1983 GOC condemnation of Old Calendarist Ecumenism applies to them?

I'll give a concrete example of the ecumenism practised in your Church.

Archbishop Chrysostomos and your Synod recently made the decision to enter into communion with the True Orthodox Church of Russia (RTOC)  under Archbishop Tikhon Pasechnik of Omsk.

Lat month it reversed that decision and decided not to enter into communion with the True Orthodox Church of Russia (RTOC.)

http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/3027.html


Yet it recognises the True Orthodox Church of Russia (RTOC) as a part of the True Orthodox Church.

This is a real example of the use of the ecumenist principle of the Invisible Church as it is practised by your Synod of Bishops.


[You will find the 1983 GOC condemnation of Old Calendarist Ecumenism in Message 19 of this thread.]

[witega]

Well this is where I have to say I don't recognize a distinction between official and unofficial heresy, and neither do the Fathers.

And yet:

The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.
- Canon 15 of the First-Second Council

So, in other words, if a bishop *officially* teaches a heresy publicly in the church, Christians are to be commended for removing themselves from him. On the other hand, if a bishop *unofficially* holds a heresy as a private opinion but *doesn't* publicly preach it, then those who separate from him are simply schismatics (and to be deposed).

Except that you haven't even gotten so far as demonstrating that a sitting hierarch privately or unofficially holds to a heresy. All you've got is that a consultative body which is not controlled by any particular bishop or synod allowed a mixed group of theologians to post their "recommendations" on a website.

Now, anyone with an ounce of logic, would realize that if Group A makes recommendation X, and Group B *ignores* recommendation X, that that means that Group B does not agree with X. This is not rocket science. If I recommend to you that you stop cutting off your nose to spite your face, and you keep sawing, then even if you don't publish a formal renouncement of my suggestions, you still obviously *do not accept* them.

Especially when, as I already posted for you, Group B (my bishops) on their actual official website have an official synodical epistle ('publicly preaching') which sets forth the clear Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church that apparently even you can't find fault with.

[Jonathan Gress]

OK witega you need stronger medicine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGq0FF_RWZw

Wait till two minutes in, you can see a RC priest and a Franciscan receive communion from the Patriarch of Alexandria.

[SolEX01]

Jonathan, what are you trying to accomplish?

[Jonathan Gress]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6GMNHtjZoA

Here's another one.

[Jonathan Gress]

Jonathan, what are you trying to accomplish?

What do you think? I'm trying to persuade you that the official churches are infected with heresy and to save yourself you should sever communion with them and join the bishops who reject ecumenism completely.

[SolEX01]

Jonathan, what are you trying to accomplish?

What do you think? I'm trying to persuade you that the official churches are infected with heresy and to save yourself you should sever communion with them and join the bishops who reject ecumenism completely.

I have no reason to believe you.   

[Jonathan Gress]

Jonathan, what are you trying to accomplish?

What do you think? I'm trying to persuade you that the official churches are infected with heresy and to save yourself you should sever communion with them and join the bishops who reject ecumenism completely.

I have no reason to believe you.   

You mean you don't accept my arguments or you don't think that's my aim?

[Jonathan Gress]

http://www.goarch.org/news/patriarchscoba9thprayerservice

According to the EP, theology does not divide the Orthodox from the 'non-Chalcedonians'.

[minasoliman]

http://www.goarch.org/news/patriarchscoba9thprayerservice

According to the EP, theology does not divide the Orthodox from the 'non-Chalcedonians'.

REALLY? IS OUTRAGE!!!!

George, I'm confused, are we supposed to sit down too...shoot!

[SolEX01]

What do you think? I'm trying to persuade you that the official churches are infected with heresy and to save yourself you should sever communion with them and join the bishops who reject ecumenism completely.

I have no reason to believe you.  

You mean you don't accept my arguments or you don't think that's my aim?

You are correct.  I don't accept your arguments as much as you haven't accepted what anyone else has said.

I feel your aim is to attract people to "Genuine Orthodox Church" (whatever that means) especially when you post alleged video of a Patriarch distributing the Eucharist to alleged Catholics (which is being discussed in another thread).

Last time I checked, proselytizing on this forum is not allowed for all Religious Denominations.