OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 10:40:41 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Author Topic: Danish baptism no longer valid?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 2109 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: 2,922


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: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,500



« 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: 2,922


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: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,500



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

LOL! How come that has anything to do with validity of baptism?
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,202


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: 2,922


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

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,327


« 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

.
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: 2,922


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

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,327


« 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

.
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: 2,922


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: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,500



« 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
Moderated
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
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« 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
Moderated
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: 198


« 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: 198


« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« 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: 6,861


"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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« 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
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« 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: 1,926



« 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
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« 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: 1,926



« 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
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 0.135 seconds with 72 queries.