OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 08:40:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Danish baptism no longer valid?  (Read 2577 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« on: September 19, 2012, 02:58:34 AM »

I have just read that the Russian Church no longer recognizes the baptism of the danish lutheran church. I'm wondering, will this be the policy of all the Church from now on, or just the russian?
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2012, 03:00:03 AM »

What has changed? Did the danes adopt gender neutral formula for baptism or something?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 03:00:22 AM by Alpo » Logged

Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2012, 03:10:39 AM »

Homosexual marriage.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2012, 03:14:51 AM »

LOL! How come that has anything to do with validity of baptism?
Logged

LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,139


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2012, 03:21:37 AM »

LOL! How come that has anything to do with validity of baptism?

It shows that the Danish church has strayed even further away from traditional Christianity.
Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2012, 03:27:06 AM »

Well, according to the spokesman, "We do not recognize the baptism officially, neither the swedish nor the danish. Ths practise - to recieve somebody without a second baptism will be impossible for us, since homosexual relationships is a sin according to orthodox theology". (My translation since I couldn't find any english source)

 http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/478838:Kirke---tro--Ortodokse-vil-ikke-anerkende-folkekirkens-daab-efter-vielser-af-homoseksuelle
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2012, 03:28:02 AM »

Since they didn't have a valid baptism to begin with, and don't have one now, I don't see how this is a problem  Huh
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2012, 03:29:58 AM »

Since they didn't have a valid baptism to begin with, and don't have one now, I don't see how this is a problem  Huh
I think it has somethig to do with that thing about the Russian Church recognizing the baptism of some churches as long as they are trinitarian.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2012, 03:31:48 AM »

Since they didn't have a valid baptism to begin with, and don't have one now, I don't see how this is a problem  Huh
I think it has somethig to do with that thing about the Russian Church recognizing the baptism of some churches as long as they are trinitarian.

I shouldn't have been so bold in the above either, as it is my understanding that some take a much more agnostic position. I just meant that chrismation "competes" or "fills" or whatever anyway.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2012, 03:37:10 AM »

I think the reason behind it is stupid, but I'm very glad they've opted for receiving Lutherans by baptism now. Surely if the promotion of sexual sin is an impediment to valid baptism, then so are obvious heresies like the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility? Just shows how legalistic and absurd the whole notion of "validity" actually is. Chrismation only is an act of economia, not an indicator of the sacramental "validity" of heterodox communions.
Logged
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,988


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2012, 03:45:22 AM »

Yeah, but what I want to know is whether or not this policy will be practiced by all the patriarchates or just the Russian Patriarchate.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2012, 03:48:06 AM »

I think it has somethig to do with that thing about the Russian Church recognizing the baptism of some churches as long as they are trinitarian.

I didn't realise homosexuality was related in any way to Triadology, or that the Danes now included mention of it in their baptismal formula. It seems like an absurd reason to stop receving them by chrismation, but I'm glad since I don't think they should have done so to begin with.

Quote
Yeah, but what I want to know is whether or not this policy will be practiced by all the patriarchates or just the Russian Patriarchate.

Unless Moscow and Constantinople get together to discuss the matter, which seems unlikely, I think it will remain a local issue. I would be very happy if Constantinople follows suit, but I hope they will justify their change in policy on the basis of something more important.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2012, 03:58:45 AM »

LOL! How come that has anything to do with validity of baptism?

It shows that the Danish church has strayed even further away from traditional Christianity.

It does but they still believe in Holy Trinity and babtismal regeneration so I fail to see how wrong understanding on marriage has anything to do with baptism.

Just shows how legalistic and absurd the whole notion of "validity" actually is.

Not really. However it shows that the MP seems to view wrong sexual ethics worse than wrong understanding on God and salvation i.e. Filioque and Lutheran soteriology.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 04:02:29 AM by Alpo » Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2012, 06:15:02 AM »

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2012, 06:35:15 AM »

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.

+1
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2012, 06:39:06 AM »

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.

If their baptism was valid, are you ignoring "I confess one baptism for the remission if sins"?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2012, 06:45:55 AM »

If their baptism was valid, are you ignoring "I confess one baptism for the remission if sins"?

We confess "one baptism" not "any baptism". The one baptism is that of the Church.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2012, 07:21:39 AM »

If their baptism was valid, are you ignoring "I confess one baptism for the remission if sins"?

We confess "one baptism" not "any baptism". The one baptism is that of the Church.

One baptism, a Christian baptism. No one mentioned bull's blood, or any other kind.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2012, 07:37:32 AM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,431



« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2012, 07:45:34 AM »

Well, according to the spokesman, "We do not recognize the baptism officially, neither the swedish nor the danish. Ths practise - to recieve somebody without a second baptism will be impossible for us, since homosexual relationships is a sin according to orthodox theology". (My translation since I couldn't find any english source)

 http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/478838:Kirke---tro--Ortodokse-vil-ikke-anerkende-folkekirkens-daab-efter-vielser-af-homoseksuelle

A little Donatism for breakfast?

I follow western rules on this anyway, but the theological logic here is utterly lacking. I'm sure it might be gratifying to some cranky Danish converts who want a more thorough-going repudiation of their old faith, but there is no way I can draw a line between that kind of theological error and baptism. You would think that they had noticed a long time back that Lutherans still use the filioque.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2012, 08:10:34 AM »

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.

If their baptism was valid, are you ignoring "I confess one baptism for the remission if sins"?
No, I am not. I have no idea what that other church did. None whatsoever. Neither do you.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2012, 08:41:37 AM »

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.

If their baptism was valid, are you ignoring "I confess one baptism for the remission if sins"?
No, I am not. I have no idea what that other church did. None whatsoever. Neither do you.

Really, have Lutherans stopped using a uniform liturgy?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2012, 08:44:45 AM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2012, 08:51:25 AM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

Outside the Church, I have no idea.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2012, 08:52:49 AM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

That's exactly how I feel. Had I been offered a choice at the time I'd have probably still gone with Chrismation but with hindsight I think baptism would have been better.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2012, 08:55:37 AM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?
I don't know the details, but I'm sure the Church has a good reason.  When atheists can become ordained ministers (I know at least one who just paid the admin fees), I wouldn't put much stock in any baptism performed by such a person.  Likewise when they freely indulge and teach false doctrine to millions.  I think a start from scratch approach works best.  As I said, it did not happen that way for me, but of I had to do it over again I would have asked to be baptized.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2012, 08:58:05 AM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

Outside the Church, I have no idea.

The heretics can't baptism now?

What happened to all baptized being of the priesthood of Christ capable of preaching the Gospel and baptizing? Or is this some sort of new Donatist thing?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
converted viking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2012, 09:02:23 AM »

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.


Interesting.  And what about those who of who came to Orthodoxy by chrismation only?  Are you saying
that we are not Orthodox Christians?  I am not trying to open a can of worms here but can you see where this is going?  Many, many converts to the Orthodox Christian faith will be considered outside of the Church.

Seraphim
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2012, 09:04:39 AM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?
I don't know the details, but I'm sure the Church has a good reason.  When atheists can become ordained ministers (I know at least one who just paid the admin fees), I wouldn't put much stock in any baptism performed by such a person.  Likewise when they freely indulge and teach false doctrine to millions.  I think a start from scratch approach works best.  As I said, it did not happen that way for me, but of I had to do it over again I would have asked to be baptized.

More red herrings. Atheist ministers? Theology? We're talking about a baptized person who baptizes another.

Must an Orthodox Christian confess before baptizing, to be free of any personal sins or heresy, for the baptism baptism to be valid? Did I say valid, how Latin (spit)? I meant 'for the baptism to stick, or actually happen'.

EDIT: iPad autocorrect fixes
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 09:05:54 AM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2012, 09:08:29 AM »

Interesting.  And what about those who of who came to Orthodoxy by chrismation only?  Are you saying
that we are not Orthodox Christians?  I am not trying to open a can of worms here but can you see where this is going?  Many, many converts to the Orthodox Christian faith will be considered outside of the Church.

Saying that receiving everyone by baptism is preferable because economia has been applied too widely, too often, for no good reason, and is causing far more problems than it solves is not the same as saying that those who were received by chrismation are not Orthodox.
Logged
converted viking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2012, 09:19:12 AM »

Interesting.  And what about those who of who came to Orthodoxy by chrismation only?  Are you saying
that we are not Orthodox Christians?  I am not trying to open a can of worms here but can you see where this is going?  Many, many converts to the Orthodox Christian faith will be considered outside of the Church.

Saying that receiving everyone by baptism is preferable because economia has been applied too widely, too often, for no good reason, and is causing far more problems than it solves is not the same as saying that those who were received by chrismation are not Orthodox.

Thank you for the explanation, I was starting to become somewhat concerned.  So what you are saying is that chrismation only is being applied too broadly and in inappropriate circumstances.

Have a nice day.

Seraphim

 
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2012, 09:25:22 AM »

Interesting.  And what about those who of who came to Orthodoxy by chrismation only?  Are you saying
that we are not Orthodox Christians?  I am not trying to open a can of worms here but can you see where this is going?  Many, many converts to the Orthodox Christian faith will be considered outside of the Church.

Saying that receiving everyone by baptism is preferable because economia has been applied too widely, too often, for no good reason, and is causing far more problems than it solves is not the same as saying that those who were received by chrismation are not Orthodox.

Thank you.

This entire brouhaha seems connected with our own patriarch's confusing position on Lutheran baptisms not so long ago.

I used to devour the canons supposedly arming myself well with all sorts of legalistic justifications for my personal beliefs. Later I just learned that most of these issues are not mine to fret, but my bishops worry.
Likening this to the old Donatist problems just does not apply. Different time, different circumstances.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2012, 09:39:26 AM »

Likening this to the old Donatist problems just does not apply. Different time, different circumstances.

Are you just ignoring it, or can you justify that? I'm not talking about then, I'm talking about now. "There are no new sins."
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 09:40:06 AM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2012, 09:48:45 AM »

Likening this to the old Donatist problems just does not apply. Different time, different circumstances.

Are you just ignoring it, or can you justify that? I'm not talking about then, I'm talking about now. "There are no new sins."

In Orthodoxy "justify" means "to make righteous". Is that what you are asking or do you want a history lesson?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2012, 09:54:02 AM »

Likening this to the old Donatist problems just does not apply. Different time, different circumstances.

Are you just ignoring it, or can you justify that? I'm not talking about then, I'm talking about now. "There are no new sins."

In Orthodoxy "justify" means "to make righteous". Is that what you are asking or do you want a history lesson?

...

Are you being dense on purpose?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2012, 10:04:23 AM »

Likening this to the old Donatist problems just does not apply. Different time, different circumstances.

Are you just ignoring it, or can you justify that? I'm not talking about then, I'm talking about now. "There are no new sins."

In Orthodoxy "justify" means "to make righteous". Is that what you are asking or do you want a history lesson?

...

Are you being dense on purpose?
No, I am trying not to argue in a non-debate sub-forum. This is not the private area where personal attacks are allowed (not that I intend any).
Want to debate this, start another topic elsewhere, please.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #36 on: September 19, 2012, 10:17:37 AM »

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.

Except that it has never been tradition do so.

Problem facts.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #37 on: September 19, 2012, 10:27:43 AM »

This issue, or scandal, or whatever it is is symptomatic of the whole "ekonomia" thing. I'm beginning to think the 'traditionalists' are correct. Baptize everyone.

Except that it has never been tradition do so.

Problem facts.

Tradition is perhaps not a good guide here. Most of the Church's direction on this issue was set 1000 years before we had the Protestant confessions to consider. Schisms directly from the Orthodox Catholic Church, yes, those for sure and baptism was not applied in those cases.
Never do I recall "Re"-baptism used as a term.
IIRC, even RCs are to received in my jurisdiction by Confession of Faith alone (not even Chrismation), but I only see Chrismations today.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2012, 10:38:02 AM »

If their baptism was valid, are you ignoring "I confess one baptism for the remission if sins"?

We confess "one baptism" not "any baptism". The one baptism is that of the Church.

But the "one baptism" phrase was originally written to forbid re-baptizing heretics, no?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2012, 10:50:04 AM »

But the "one baptism" phrase was originally written to forbid re-baptizing heretics, no?

Many groups practiced multiple baptism. You'd get baptised, screw up, get baptised again. The phrase was written to forbid Orthodox doing the same.


St. Cyril of Jerusalem says quite unequivocally that it does not refer to heretical baptisms:
"We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said, Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas if you fail once, the thing cannot be set right; for there is "one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism" (Eph. 4:5): for only the heretics are rebaptized, because the former was no baptism." [Procatechesis 7 - Gifford's translation]
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 10:53:34 AM by Orthodox11 » Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #40 on: September 19, 2012, 12:00:10 PM »

I'm a little confused by the position that says "heretical baptisms are not valid and reception by chrismation is an act of economia."

If that's the case, why do it? Ever? Is it that hard to be baptized?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #41 on: September 19, 2012, 12:09:39 PM »

I'm a little confused by the position that says "heretical baptisms are not valid and reception by chrismation is an act of economia."

If that's the case, why do it? Ever? Is it that hard to be baptized?

You are confused because the statement is incorrect.

From time immemorial folks from communities professing heretical beliefs (Arians to name an infamous example and one which had a lot to do with Trinitarian theology), who technically are not necessarily heretics themselves, were not received by "rebaptism".

This has been going on forever and "traditionalists" are those looking to return to a time which never existed. They should be careful lest they flirt with restorationism.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #42 on: September 19, 2012, 01:48:00 PM »

Ansgar,
Don't worry. The Paris Exarchate still receives Lutherans by chrismation, so you would not be concerned.

As for the Moscow Patriarchate, their decision seems inconsistent to me. Archbishop Longin of the MP has signed an agreement to recognise Lutheran baptisms in Germany. And the Lutherans here even allow gay/lesbian priests to live in Church appartments with their husbands/wives. And also, what about baptisms performed before the introduction of gay marriage?

Anyway, this whole thing seems so hypocritical to me. The canonical territory of the MP has the highest divorce rate in the world: over 70% of their flock divorce at least once in their lives. Is that not much more of a threat for the holiness of marriage than gay marriage, which will concern maybe 2% of all marriages?
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #43 on: September 19, 2012, 03:14:49 PM »

Gorazd,

Gay "marriage" does not merely threaten the "holiness" of marriage; it threatens the fundamental definition of marriage. Arguably divorce does as well, but the difference is that while relatively few enter a marriage with the intent to divorce (thus violating the permanence of marriage, which could be considered part of the definition) all who enter gay "marriage" enter it with the intent to violate the "union of a man and a woman" aspect of the definition. What that has to do with the validity of their baptisms is beyond me, however.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #44 on: September 19, 2012, 03:24:57 PM »

Gay "marriage" does not merely threaten the "holiness" of marriage; it threatens the fundamental definition of marriage.
Civil marriage also does, probably even more so. Luther called marriage "ein weltlich Ding" ("a worldly thing"). That is what the Church of Denmark has been doing since the Reformation. The marrige they perform is basically a blessing of a civil union, not a holy mystery, uniting a man and a woman through divine grace. It has nothing to do with the Orthodox mystery (sacrament) at all.

So whether they perform that rite on a man and a woman only, or also on same-sex couples, it has never been anything like Orthodox marriage for a few centuries. Probably the responsible persons in the MP should get some knowledge about Lutheran theology, before reacting the way they did.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2012, 03:56:08 PM »

Gay "marriage" does not merely threaten the "holiness" of marriage; it threatens the fundamental definition of marriage.
Civil marriage also does, probably even more so. Luther called marriage "ein weltlich Ding" ("a worldly thing"). That is what the Church of Denmark has been doing since the Reformation. The marrige they perform is basically a blessing of a civil union, not a holy mystery, uniting a man and a woman through divine grace. It has nothing to do with the Orthodox mystery (sacrament) at all.

So whether they perform that rite on a man and a woman only, or also on same-sex couples, it has never been anything like Orthodox marriage for a few centuries. Probably the responsible persons in the MP should get some knowledge about Lutheran theology, before reacting the way they did.

Which Luther? 'Cause I certainly can produce writings by Luther which would argue against the gist of what you are saying here. I am not a Luther expert, but I had to read entirely too much of what he wrote.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but I don't think Luther saw marriage a merely a "wordly" thing in the light you casting it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #46 on: September 19, 2012, 05:58:12 PM »

From the website of the ELCA, the Lutheran Church in the US in full communion with the Church of Denmark:

Quote
Luther rejects the sacramental status of marriage because, unlike baptism and eucharist, it does not convey the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus. In fact, it is not in any way a means of establishing the reign of Christ through the Gospel. Marriage has its roots before the fall, in the pairing of Adam and Eve. It is part of the ordering of creation and applies to all people, not exclusively Christians. For this reason Luther is adamant that legislation around marital and family matters rightly belongs to the civil authority, not the church. He gives strength to his case by denouncing in detail the multiple ecclesiastical laws that affected couples adversely.
http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Journal-of-Lutheran-Ethics/Issues/February-2009/11-On-Marriage-and-Family.aspx


In Orthodoxy, by contrast, marriage is not a matter of civil authority. It is about God's uncreated grace making husband and wife one flesh.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2012, 06:48:02 PM »

Gay "marriage" does not merely threaten the "holiness" of marriage; it threatens the fundamental definition of marriage.
Civil marriage also does, probably even more so. Luther called marriage "ein weltlich Ding" ("a worldly thing"). That is what the Church of Denmark has been doing since the Reformation. The marrige they perform is basically a blessing of a civil union, not a holy mystery, uniting a man and a woman through divine grace. It has nothing to do with the Orthodox mystery (sacrament) at all.

So whether they perform that rite on a man and a woman only, or also on same-sex couples, it has never been anything like Orthodox marriage for a few centuries. Probably the responsible persons in the MP should get some knowledge about Lutheran theology, before reacting the way they did.

Touché.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Tommelomsky
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian-Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 19, 2012, 06:51:41 PM »

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.
Logged

The meaning of life is to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Saint Seraphim of Sarov

Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

+ Glory be to God for all things! +
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #49 on: September 19, 2012, 06:55:09 PM »

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #50 on: September 19, 2012, 06:57:54 PM »

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?
Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?
Logged
Tommelomsky
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian-Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 19, 2012, 07:01:46 PM »

A church that strays away from the traditions where God instituted the marriage to be a Holy union between man and woman in order to be one in flesh, should not be taken lightly. Their baptism is no longer based on the traditions, but on the "now".

Whether the baptisms done before this took effect should be recognized or not, is a more difficult matter, but could also be seen as a consequence of what the "folkchurches" in Sweden and Denmark have done.

It is just an opinion.

Logged

The meaning of life is to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Saint Seraphim of Sarov

Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

+ Glory be to God for all things! +
Tommelomsky
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian-Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 19, 2012, 07:04:52 PM »

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?
Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

Yes, it would have bothered me. Because it sounds like something the Lutheran church anno 2012 could have said and i can imagine how much upset it would have caused if it was stated like that much longer back ago in time (1000-1500+ years back in time).
Logged

The meaning of life is to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Saint Seraphim of Sarov

Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

+ Glory be to God for all things! +
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #53 on: September 19, 2012, 07:05:48 PM »

I say baptize everyone.  It's like nuking aliens from space.  It's the only way to be sure.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2012, 07:10:21 PM »

I think everybody in this thread should read this article written by the late Patriarch Sergei on Sacramental Economy. It points out a lot of the problems with the thinking that many in this thread are displaying, both those who question how changing a certain belief affects the 'validity' of a heterodox group's baptisms and those who are saying that we should just 'baptize everybody'. I hate to have to pull out this line of argumentation, but both types of thinking are foreign to the mind (or phronema, depending on how pretentious you feel) of Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 07:13:31 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #55 on: September 19, 2012, 07:18:11 PM »

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?
Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

A denial of the Deity of Christ would be problematic. My fairly uneducated guess is that such a group's baptisms would not be valid. But that's not really on the same level as gay "marriage" (which, as you will see if you read my previous posts, does in fact "bother" me).

If Protestants, who by and large teach the filioque, a completely heterodox ecclesiology, a false understanding of the nature of Grace, a different source of revelation, a heterodox understanding of the nature and conditions of salvation, etc., etc. can have their baptisms recognized, I'm not sure why a heretical and immoral understanding of marriage should break the came's back.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #56 on: September 19, 2012, 07:22:42 PM »

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?
Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

A denial of the Deity of Christ would be problematic. My fairly uneducated guess is that such a group's baptisms would not be valid. But that's not really on the same level as gay "marriage" (which, as you will see if you read my previous posts, does in fact "bother" me).

If Protestants, who by and large teach the filioque, a completely heterodox ecclesiology, a false understanding of the nature of Grace, a different source of revelation, a heterodox understanding of the nature and conditions of salvation, etc., etc. can have their baptisms recognized, I'm not sure why a heretical and immoral understanding of marriage should break the came's back.

It is because the authority of a heterodox group to baptize is not dependent upon that group's beliefs.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Tommelomsky
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian-Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 19, 2012, 07:25:18 PM »

I am not denying Deity. But the question would have been (it is not so of today): could it really be like that? Meaning i would probably have asked a priest or catechumenate-class teacher to explain this to me in a understandable way.

The reasons you mention about the protestant baptism has been a source of questioning in the past, but up to this very hour
i accept that it is valid, even if i disagree with the protestant teaching. Baptism is from what i have been taught valid as long
as it has been done In the Name Of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit according to the traditions.

So this matter is not a joke to me, it has been and still is source of thinking and wondering from time to another.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 07:28:03 PM by Tommelomsky » Logged

The meaning of life is to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Saint Seraphim of Sarov

Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

+ Glory be to God for all things! +
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #58 on: September 19, 2012, 07:33:10 PM »

A church that strays away from the traditions where God instituted the marriage to be a Holy union between man and woman in order to be one in flesh, should not be taken lightly.
As I have mentioned above, Lutherans never considered marriage to be a "Holy union", but a "worldly thing", i.e. a civil matter. In the past, that hasn't ever been a reason for rebaptizing Lutherans.

In fact, my priest once explained that when we receive people into Orthodoxy by chrismation, it does not mean we according an intrinsic value to the act performed outside the Orthodox Church, but in the chrismation, the Holy Spirit completes what was done in the heterodox baptism.
Logged
Tommelomsky
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian-Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 19, 2012, 07:42:09 PM »

Thank you for the explanation. That is a good point. It actually brings up some questions i have for my priest in time to come.
Logged

The meaning of life is to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Saint Seraphim of Sarov

Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

+ Glory be to God for all things! +
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,431



« Reply #60 on: September 19, 2012, 08:27:16 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #61 on: September 19, 2012, 09:03:01 PM »

I am not denying Deity.

I didn't think you were. I was responding to Kerdy (who I also do not think denies the Deity of Christ) on a hypothetical question concerning the validity of the baptisms of Deity-denying groups.

The reasons you mention about the protestant baptism has been a source of questioning in the past, but up to this very hour
i accept that it is valid, even if i disagree with the protestant teaching. Baptism is from what i have been taught valid as long
as it has been done In the Name Of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit according to the traditions.

My understanding is that Orthodox Churches always have the right to receive converts by baptism (and that the Greeks in fact baptize almost everyone), but that any baptism with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit may be recognized. As long as the Danish Lutherans are baptizing in the name of the Trinity, and with water, I don't see what gay "marriage" (which, again, I stridently oppose) has to do with it.

So this matter is not a joke to me, it has been and still is source of thinking and wondering from time to another.

Rest assured it is not a joke to me either.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #62 on: September 19, 2012, 09:10:08 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.


But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,015



« Reply #63 on: September 19, 2012, 09:10:36 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.


But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

And who are those?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 19, 2012, 09:41:53 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.


But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #65 on: September 19, 2012, 09:51:25 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.


But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #66 on: September 19, 2012, 09:53:40 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.


But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

And who are those?

Whomever the Church says they are.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
elevatedarcher
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: I am a brand new Christian
Jurisdiction: I don't have one yet!
Posts: 4



« Reply #67 on: September 19, 2012, 10:29:44 PM »

I'm just throwing this out there, as I think it may fit with the conversation. I have been thinking lately about my baptism, I went on to worship other gods and eventually thought of myself as an atheist for a point.

Can a baptism be for nothing if someone goes against Christ?

I know reading Luke 15 and the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son give me hope, but I guess I am curious about baptism and everyone's thoughts here.

Peace of Christ be with you all

Logged

The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them. Psalm 34 7

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind Romans 12 2
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #68 on: September 19, 2012, 10:33:15 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.


But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 19, 2012, 10:34:40 PM »

I'm just throwing this out there, as I think it may fit with the conversation. I have been thinking lately about my baptism, I went on to worship other gods and eventually thought of myself as an atheist for a point.

Can a baptism be for nothing if someone goes against Christ?

I know reading Luke 15 and the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son give me hope, but I guess I am curious about baptism and everyone's thoughts here.

Peace of Christ be with you all



Once baptized always baptized. You've been circumsized in spirit. If you stray, you repent and confess.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #70 on: September 19, 2012, 10:54:55 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.


But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 10:56:51 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #71 on: September 19, 2012, 11:15:48 PM »

Personally, I would have liked it better had I been baptized into Orthodoxy.  I think all converts should be, but this is hindsight talking and my Bishop knows far more about these matters than I do. 

I agree with the move and don't think it should be limited to just Lutherans.  If a denomination has strayed so far from the path to endorse homosexuality, how can the Church be at ease about anything else?  What other heretical actions have they included into their practices such as baptism.  Baptism a female infant as a male at the parents request, etc.  I see nothing wrong with the change.

What makes baptism a baptism? Is it the theology of the person who baptizes? Or is it " I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"?

The western rule is that if the formula is used and the people involved do intend to baptize, then it is valid. The Catholics do not even expect the minster to be a Christian. At worst the sacramental churches might require a conditional baptism.


But I would say that this materialistic understanding of baptism is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. The only ones who have the authority to baptize are the people that the Church says have the authority to baptize.

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

The authority is by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

I don't know how JWs baptize.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #72 on: September 19, 2012, 11:21:50 PM »

LOL! How come that has anything to do with validity of baptism?

It shows that the Danish church has strayed even further away from traditional Christianity.

LOL, where is the line exactly?
Logged

Forgive my sins.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #73 on: September 19, 2012, 11:22:33 PM »

I think the reason behind it is stupid, but I'm very glad they've opted for receiving Lutherans by baptism now. Surely if the promotion of sexual sin is an impediment to valid baptism, then so are obvious heresies like the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility? Just shows how legalistic and absurd the whole notion of "validity" actually is. Chrismation only is an act of economia, not an indicator of the sacramental "validity" of heterodox communions.

This!
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #74 on: September 19, 2012, 11:47:48 PM »

I wonder how many fromer Danish Lutherans actually have joined the Moscow Patriarchate. I guess it's not a big number?
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #75 on: September 19, 2012, 11:58:35 PM »

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

The authority is by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

I don't know how JWs baptize.

They baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On what grounds then, would you think it to be ok to reject their baptism, as most Western Christians do? Surely you do not believe that even they have the authority to baptize.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 12:05:01 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #76 on: September 20, 2012, 12:04:21 AM »

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

The authority is by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

I don't know how JWs baptize.

They baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On what grounds then, would you think it to be ok to reject their baptism, as most Western Christians do?
No they don't.

I mean you are talking about JW's baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit right?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 12:05:20 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #77 on: September 20, 2012, 12:15:29 AM »

Yes, because that's not "materialistic"... Whatever that means.

It is materialistic in the same sense that certain groups—which after going into schism from their own bishops took some Holy Chrism with them, thinking that they could continue to Chrismate with it—were materialistic in their thinking. That one can, without the consent of the Church, place a man in water, speak the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," and thus baptize that man into the body of Christ is nothing but wishful thinking.

And how many believe themselves to be outside the Church? It's not the institution they trust, it's God. In that case, it's you who is being materialistic.

Baptism can only be conferred by those who have the authority to do so, unless you do not believe that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Let me ask you something, do you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are able to baptize?

The authority is by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

I don't know how JWs baptize.

They baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On what grounds then, would you think it to be ok to reject their baptism, as most Western Christians do?
No they don't.

I mean you are talking about JW's baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit right?

Perhaps I am mistaken. But that matters very little. The Mormons I know do use the baptismal formula given in the Great Commission, and could serve as just as good of an example. There is a certain bit of sophistry that one has to engage in to reject the baptism of Mormons (and other non-trinitarians) on the grounds of their beliefs, which I would like to point out.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 12:24:35 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #78 on: September 20, 2012, 12:27:19 AM »

Well JW's most certainly don't baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The two questions JW's have to answer are as follows:

"(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/baptism_questions.html

But this raises another point, about Mormons. Even if Mormons baptized by "The Father, etc" can't that be rejected because their conception of all three are wholly unorthodox? Why is that sophistry?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #79 on: September 20, 2012, 12:29:22 AM »

Mormons are polytheists, and our God does not live on Kolob.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #80 on: September 20, 2012, 12:32:04 AM »

Mormons are polytheists, and our God does not live on Kolob.
I think you have the latter wrong. Do modern LDS members even accept such astronomy?

EDIT FWIW my priest and I talked about baptisms of the heterodox, he said he would baptize protestants, JWs, Mormons, etc. I think Roman Catholics are the exception, for the most part.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 12:33:14 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #81 on: September 20, 2012, 12:47:24 AM »

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I am not understanding your point. Which tradition connects sexual morality to valid baptism?
Would it bother you if they taught Jesus was a cool dude like Budda and we can get to heaven on our own?  Would you still think their baptism valid?

A denial of the Deity of Christ would be problematic. My fairly uneducated guess is that such a group's baptisms would not be valid. But that's not really on the same level as gay "marriage" (which, as you will see if you read my previous posts, does in fact "bother" me).

If Protestants, who by and large teach the filioque, a completely heterodox ecclesiology, a false understanding of the nature of Grace, a different source of revelation, a heterodox understanding of the nature and conditions of salvation, etc., etc. can have their baptisms recognized, I'm not sure why a heretical and immoral understanding of marriage should break the came's back.
I just don't see any difference between one heresy and another.  If a group is corrupt at their core, everything they do should be undone and corrected.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #82 on: September 20, 2012, 12:49:31 AM »

Well JW's most certainly don't baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The two questions JW's have to answer are as follows:

"(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/baptism_questions.html

But this raises another point, about Mormons. Even if Mormons baptized by "The Father, etc" can't that be rejected because their conception of all three are wholly unorthodox? Why is that sophistry?

It is sophistry because on those same grounds, the baptisms of the Arians and Pneumatomachi (whose understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was definitely not Orthodox) should have been rejected, yet canonically, we are to accept the baptisms of Arians and Pneumatomachi (see canon VII of First Constantinople). If we reject Mormon baptisms (as we should), on what grounds can we reject them? Perhaps we could go the route the Roman Catholic Church goes, in saying that their baptisms should be rejected because they do not intend to perform the same baptism performed by the Church. But then it could be argued that many heterodox groups do not intend to perform the same baptism either, and yet their baptisms are considered to be valid. This is where I think a good understanding of economy and the Church's power to bind and loose needs to come into play, because the alternatives (focusing on form alone, or on form and intent) are unsatisfactory.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #83 on: September 20, 2012, 12:54:02 AM »

Well JW's most certainly don't baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The two questions JW's have to answer are as follows:

"(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"
http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/baptism_questions.html

But this raises another point, about Mormons. Even if Mormons baptized by "The Father, etc" can't that be rejected because their conception of all three are wholly unorthodox? Why is that sophistry?

It is sophistry because on those same grounds, the baptisms of the Arians and Pneumatomachi (whose understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was definitely not Orthodox) should have been rejected, yet canonically, we are to accept the baptisms of Arians and Pneumatomachi (see canon VII of First Constantinople). If we reject Mormon baptisms (as we should), on what grounds can we reject them? Perhaps we could go the route the Roman Catholic Church goes, in saying that their baptisms should be rejected because they do not intend to perform the same baptism performed by the Church. But then it could be argued that many heterodox groups do not intend to perform the same baptism either, and yet their baptisms are considered to be valid. This is where I think a good understanding of economy and the Church's power to bind and loose needs to come into play, because the alternatives (focusing on form alone, or on form and intent) are unsatisfactory.
Ok thanks for clarifying.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #84 on: September 20, 2012, 07:13:25 AM »

I support the decision. Gods commandments matter. Not being "tolerant enough", in time or being trendy. These kind of matters shows the importance of being true to the traditions and not bargain at all.

I hear that Baptists eat shrimp; my bishop refuses to rebaptize them though.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.278 seconds with 111 queries.