OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 04:18:51 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 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodoxinfo.com  (Read 2162 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Stylite
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 16


« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2014, 10:58:24 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/

So let me get this straight, your priest told you to avoid orthodox blogs while allowing you to seek advice on this forum from people who are often new to the faith (or not even orthodox) and who lack any theological training??
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,182


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2014, 11:10:22 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/

So let me get this straight, your priest told you to avoid orthodox blogs while allowing you to seek advice on this forum from people who are often new to the faith (or not even orthodox) and who lack any theological training??

People on this forum also share legitimate resources. Wink
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,237


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2014, 11:49:33 AM »

Here is as close to a compendium of "official" links published by the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America. http://assemblyofbishops.org/links

There are enough links to more links there to keep even the most diligent sort busy until winter!
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,389


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2014, 12:35:26 PM »

So let me get this straight, your priest told you to avoid orthodox blogs while allowing you to seek advice on this forum from people who are often new to the faith (or not even orthodox) and who lack any theological training??

Don't paint us all with that brush.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2014, 10:43:18 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.
Logged
Cyrus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Christian
Posts: 40


« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2014, 10:49:33 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.


One of the complaints of the Latins against the EP in 1054 was that they baptized the Latins who came to them.   So, it has been the tradition from at least the 9th century to baptize them.  OFcourse, through time it has changed several times between the various local churches, which sometimes had different ways of receiving those coming to them.  Ultimately its up to the local bishop on whether to use the norm or the exception to the norm when receiving those into her bosom.  None of the ways which they decide are wrong.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2014, 10:56:51 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

I must strongly disagree. I have done a great deal of study of this issue. The prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church for centuries has been to receive Baptized Catholics and Protestants by Chrismation. This is based on the precedent set by canon 95 of the Council in Trullo and two pan-Orthodox councils, Constantinople 1484 for Catholics, and Jerusalem Bethlehem 1672 for Protestants. The reception of a convert by Chrismation is an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation. If Trullo could allow an Arian who denied the divinity of Christ to be received by Chrismation, a Protestant or Catholic can also be received by Chrismation. Any priest, on Mt. Athos, or elsewhere, who refuses to give the Eucharist to a person who was received by Chrismation  is wrong and should repent and accept the judgment of the Church on this matter.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,926


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2014, 10:58:48 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 10:59:23 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2014, 11:02:38 PM »

If there ever is another ecumenical council it would seem baptism and rebaptism should be addressed. After all I understand that is how an issue that is debated is suppose to be answered in the Church. The question is will there ever be such a council that can be agreed is ecumenical. One problem Catholics have, and I admit troubles me, is that the Orthodox are somewhat divided in doctrine. Forgive me if that sounds offensive--but that's how it appears sometimes. Sure they are unified in the liturgy and prayer but in doctrinal issues, like the nature of baptism, they seem divided, some insisting non-Orthodox always be baptized and others insisting they need not. Just stating how I, and other Catholics feel. Sometimes I do not know exactly how to respond to their accusations of the Orthodox Church tending to have national or local disagreements that divide it whereas the Roman Catholic Church is universal.

There is really no disagreement on this issue. Every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States receives those Baptized with water
"in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," through Chrismation. Even ROCOR which favors reception through Bapism, allows a Bishop to exercise economy and to receive a convert through Chrismation as an act of economy. The only ones causing problems on this matter are fringe groups most of which are not in canonical Orthodoxy. Reception of Baptized converts from Catholicism or Protestantism is not a modernization. It has been the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church for centuries.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,926


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2014, 11:05:07 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

I must strongly disagree. I have done a great deal of study of this issue. The prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church for centuries has been to receive Baptized Catholics and Protestants by Chrismation. This is based on the precedent set by canon 95 of the Council in Trullo and two pan-Orthodox councils, Constantinople 1484 for Catholics, and Jerusalem Bethlehem 1672 for Protestants. The reception of a convert by Chrismation is an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation. If Trullo could allow an Arian who denied the divinity of Christ to be received by Chrismation, a Protestant or Catholic can also be received by Chrismation. Any priest, on Mt. Athos, or elsewhere, who refuses to give the Eucharist to a person who was received by Chrismation  is wrong and should repent and accept the judgment of the Church on this matter.
Per my earlier advice, please do not discuss the subject of the rebaptism of converts on this thread, for that is already the subject of discussion on another thread on which you were recently an active participant. Thank you.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #55 on: May 11, 2014, 11:10:23 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

We have already discussed this elsewhere.  The ancient authorities by no means support the Greek method as the canonically correct course.  The Greek practice, while allowed, cannot really be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian, Augustine, or decrees of ecumenical councils.  It has been implicitly criticized by respected theologians such as Fr. Florovsky.  See also Fr. John Morris's posts here on the topic. 

Cannot be harmonized with the spirit of Cyprian? What Cyprian have you been reading?

The same one as Fr. Georges Florovsky.   

Of course, as you would know, St. Cyprian denied the possibility of baptism outside of the Church. Do you believe then that the heterodox are within the Church?

The canons of the Ecumenical Councils take precedence over St. Cyprian. See canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, for example. The canons allowed the reception of most heretical groups by Profession of Faith or Chrismation.
Reception of a convert through Chrismation is not the recognition of a non-Orthodox Baptism. It is an act of economy through which the Church provides the grace that was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism through Chrismation.
A few people are causing a great deal of confusion, by following their opinion on what they think the Church should do instead of following the practice of the Church. We must follow the practice of the Church not what we think it should do. There is no question that the prevailing practice of the Church has  been to receive Baptized converts through Chrismation.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #56 on: May 11, 2014, 11:18:38 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.
My advice to you is to run don't walk away from any web site associated with non canonical groups calling themselves Orthodox. That would include Greek Old Caledarists, or any group calling itself Genuine or True Orthodox. Stick with the canonical Orthodox Church. If a Bishop is not a member of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the United States, he is not canonical and his practices suspect. Here is a list of canonical Orthodox Bishops in the United States, http://assemblyofbishops.org/directories/bishops/ The site lists the Antiochian Bishops as "temporarily withdrawn. However, last week, the Holy Synod of Antioch instructed its Bishops to re-join the regional Bishops Assemblies. We received a letter from our Patriarchal Vicar last week telling those Antiochian clergy serving on the various committees to resume their participation. I am on two committees, the Pastoral Committee as a special consultant on the reception of converts, and the Ecumenical Affairs Committee.
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2014, 08:49:15 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.

True, but there is still plenty of info on the site that can trip up an inquirer.  I know, I was one of them. Smiley
Logged

Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #58 on: May 12, 2014, 08:57:21 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.

True, but there is still plenty of info on the site that can trip up an inquirer.  I know, I was one of them. Smiley

I was another. Wink
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 12, 2014, 09:01:00 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.

True, but there is still plenty of info on the site that can trip up an inquirer.  I know, I was one of them. Smiley

I was another. Wink

LOL, well done, sir! laugh
Logged

TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,442



« Reply #60 on: May 12, 2014, 09:01:18 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.

True, but there is still plenty of info on the site that can trip up an inquirer.  I know, I was one of them. Smiley

I was another. Wink
A cautionary tale, to be sure.  Tongue
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #61 on: May 12, 2014, 09:31:20 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.

True, but there is still plenty of info on the site that can trip up an inquirer.  I know, I was one of them. Smiley

I was another. Wink
A cautionary tale, to be sure.  Tongue

Yeah, well that old "conservative New Calendarist", sitting-on-the-fence line exemplified by Orthodoxinfo.com seems to be dying out (just my impression, could be wrong). Increasingly people seem to realize they have to make a choice: either accept that ecumenism is a heresy and follow that to its logical conclusion, which is to break communion with the ecumenists; or else defend ecumenism as part of Orthodox tradition and cease making an issue out of it.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,442



« Reply #62 on: May 12, 2014, 09:36:03 AM »

That seems to be a bit of a false dilemma, but this is the convert section, so I will refrain from that rabbit trail.  Smiley

I was just teasing you btw, I enjoy your contributions here and they do make me think.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,227



« Reply #63 on: May 12, 2014, 09:42:02 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.


Not always. My bishop prefers to receive converts by baptism. He doesn't take Protestant baptismal theology at face value.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,227



« Reply #64 on: May 12, 2014, 09:44:00 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

Orthodoxinfo.com represents the traditional position of the Greek church towards baptism of heretics (which is technically the canonically correct one from my understanding), namely that in order to have the correct form of baptism, and thereby be exempt from re-baptism on entering the Orthodox Church, one must be fully immersed three times with the Trinitarian formula. The Russian Church since the late 17th century had a laxer practice, whereby anyone who was baptized with the Trinitarian formula, even if only by sprinkling, did not need re-baptism. ROCOR attempted to bring its practice in line with the traditional Greek and canonically correct use in the 1970s but that only had partial success from what I learned.

These days, only the most conservative parts of official Orthodoxy follow this canonically correct course, e.g. on Mt Athos (where I've heard stories of convert pilgrims being refused communion because they were not properly baptized). Indeed, it is apparently common even for cradle Orthodox now to be baptized with sprinkling in the Moscow Patriarchate and the new calendar Church of Greece; Oriental Orthodox churches are actually better at baptizing correctly than the Eastern Orthodox (outside the True Orthodox churches).

I must strongly disagree. I have done a great deal of study of this issue. The prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church for centuries has been to receive Baptized Catholics and Protestants by Chrismation. This is based on the precedent set by canon 95 of the Council in Trullo and two pan-Orthodox councils, Constantinople 1484 for Catholics, and Jerusalem Bethlehem 1672 for Protestants. The reception of a convert by Chrismation is an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation. If Trullo could allow an Arian who denied the divinity of Christ to be received by Chrismation, a Protestant or Catholic can also be received by Chrismation. Any priest, on Mt. Athos, or elsewhere, who refuses to give the Eucharist to a person who was received by Chrismation  is wrong and should repent and accept the judgment of the Church on this matter.
Per my earlier advice, please do not discuss the subject of the rebaptism of converts on this thread, for that is already the subject of discussion on another thread on which you were recently an active participant. Thank you.

Whoops. Didn't see this until after I posted.  Lips Sealed

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,945



« Reply #65 on: May 12, 2014, 10:19:40 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.


yes, those evil Old Calendarists!  They're  all eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvil.

BTW, it should be pointed out that if there is any question that the baptism was non-Trinitarian, the priest, after consultations with his bishop, will baptize.  THere was a question about my baptism since it was in an LCA church (one of the churches that would merge into the ELCA) and even back then in the 1970s there were a number of these churches who would perform creative baptisms using their own Trinitarian formulae that are the products of gender inclusiveness and the like.  I had to confirm that my baptism was Trinitarian and it was, in fact. Im pretty sure my parents would never have allowed a baptism that was anything but in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

EDIT:  Mods, my apologies, I did not see the warning about discussions re: second baptism.  I just read the newest entry and made my comment. if you prefer, feel free to delete the comment or we can start a new thread.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:21:48 AM by scamandrius » Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
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: 1,556



« Reply #66 on: May 12, 2014, 10:34:28 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.

True, but there is still plenty of info on the site that can trip up an inquirer.  I know, I was one of them. Smiley

I was another. Wink
A cautionary tale, to be sure.  Tongue

Yeah, well that old "conservative New Calendarist", sitting-on-the-fence line exemplified by Orthodoxinfo.com seems to be dying out (just my impression, could be wrong). Increasingly people seem to realize they have to make a choice: either accept that ecumenism is a heresy and follow that to its logical conclusion, which is to break communion with the ecumenists; or else defend ecumenism as part of Orthodox tradition and cease making an issue out of it.

Wishful thinking. It is strong in Greece.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #67 on: May 12, 2014, 10:40:38 AM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.

True, but there is still plenty of info on the site that can trip up an inquirer.  I know, I was one of them. Smiley

I was another. Wink
A cautionary tale, to be sure.  Tongue

Yeah, well that old "conservative New Calendarist", sitting-on-the-fence line exemplified by Orthodoxinfo.com seems to be dying out (just my impression, could be wrong). Increasingly people seem to realize they have to make a choice: either accept that ecumenism is a heresy and follow that to its logical conclusion, which is to break communion with the ecumenists; or else defend ecumenism as part of Orthodox tradition and cease making an issue out of it.

Wishful thinking. It is strong in Greece.

Thanks for the information. My impression might be too influenced by the currents of discussion in the English-speaking internet. I think forum discussions force people to clarify their positions and take stands, so you end up with less of the fence-sitting. Certainly my experience of Old Calendarism has been that opinions are not nearly as black and white in real life as you might expect from on-line arguments.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:41:18 AM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,788



« Reply #68 on: May 12, 2014, 08:25:38 PM »

Thank you guys for good self management. Moderators would have much less to do it you recognizing an error, admit to it,  and allow the post to continue. Thank you for your self discipline.

Thomas
 Convert Issues Forum Moderator.
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 525


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #69 on: May 12, 2014, 09:16:55 PM »

Going back to the original topic of this thread: When I was an enquirer over a year ago, I found the website to be rather jarring (coming from a Catholic perspective), but at the same time I was looking for a challenge to my beliefs, hoping to either confirm them or open myself up to the truth.

In hindsight however, most of the material on that site (with regards to Catholicism) really didn't factor into my decision to convert.  From my limited experience, most Catholic apologists won't respond to people who link articles from there. Although I don't know whether or not it has to do with the site's reputation or the fact that they'd rather not discuss such sensitive issues such as the sanctity of Francis of Assisi or the validity of the Marian apparitions.

In my opinion, get a good (unbiased) book on Church history, a reliable book on Orthodox theology, and the writings of the Fathers.  You'll go far.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:18:06 PM by Sam G » Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,293



« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2014, 09:27:53 PM »


In my opinion, get a good (unbiased) book on Church history, a reliable book on Orthodox theology, and the writings of the Fathers.  You'll go far.

What is wrong with bias?  I don't think that I have read more biased authors than the Church Fathers.  Should we ignore them?
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #71 on: May 12, 2014, 09:46:47 PM »

Love ORI and Orthodoxinfo.

As far as criticisms of others go, I may read those as defense of Orthodoxy (which from what I remember they really were), rather than proactive challenges of others.
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 525


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2014, 09:51:35 PM »

What is wrong with bias?  I don't think that I have read more biased authors than the Church Fathers.  Should we ignore them?

Assuming one believes that the Orthodox Church is the true Church, an unbiased view of history would reflect the truth of God's Church.

Remarks aside, by unbiased I simply meant a book that deals with history in it's full complexity.  So many Catholic (my own background) historical "proofs" of the papacy rely on glossing over the historical record and horribly misquoting the Church Fathers.
Logged

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,293



« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2014, 09:56:00 PM »

. . . an unbiased view of history . . .

Remarks aside, by unbiased I simply meant a book that deals with history in it's full complexity.  

History is nothing other than lies that have been agreed to.  The Orthodox writings are the accurate view of what is needed for eternity, in its full complexity.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2014, 11:21:27 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.


yes, those evil Old Calendarists!  They're  all eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvil.

BTW, it should be pointed out that if there is any question that the baptism was non-Trinitarian, the priest, after consultations with his bishop, will baptize.  THere was a question about my baptism since it was in an LCA church (one of the churches that would merge into the ELCA) and even back then in the 1970s there were a number of these churches who would perform creative baptisms using their own Trinitarian formulae that are the products of gender inclusiveness and the like.  I had to confirm that my baptism was Trinitarian and it was, in fact. Im pretty sure my parents would never have allowed a baptism that was anything but in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

EDIT:  Mods, my apologies, I did not see the warning about discussions re: second baptism.  I just read the newest entry and made my comment. if you prefer, feel free to delete the comment or we can start a new thread.

The position of the Antiochian Archdiocese and all other canonical Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA is that if a person was not Baptized with the words, "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"  they must be Baptized when they enter the Orthodox Church. There is no way that any Orthodox can receive a person who was Baptized using so called inclusive language by Chrismation. We do not have to consult the Bishop, the rules of the Antiochian Archdiocese clearly state that that before a Priest receives a convert through Chrismation he must have definite proof that the person was Baptized with the proper Trinitarian words.  Otherwise, he must receive the convert through Baptism.
Fr. John W. Morris. 
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:22:51 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #75 on: May 12, 2014, 11:34:25 PM »

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/


The reason I wonder is they mention the problem with non-Orthodox baptism which seems to be fine by all Orthodox jurisdictions as long as it is Trinitarian--not Mormon, JW, etc. So Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and other baptisms are legitimate. I would just be Chrisimated though my friend (who was Lutheran) said I chose to. Not sure but I understood it was ruled by one of the synods some time ago that Christians did not have to be re-baptised and that this was heresy or at least error to say so. My question is what's up with orthodoxinfo.com? Is is good, bad or a mix? One frustration I find with Orthodoxy is that a lot of things are not clear. There is not one guy in charge I suppose is the cause of that which is the point. I do find in my research that this one guy in charge is a problem. But it is hard for a Catholic to see all this unclarity in Orthodoxy. Just trying to read good sources, too.

One must take anything posted on orthodxinfo with large grain of salt. The webmaster is heavily influenced by the Old Calendarists and may even be one himself, I am not sure.
On the issue of reception of converts, the prevailing practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church has been to receive converts from Catholicism and Protestantis who were Baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople of 1484 for Catholics and the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 for Protestants. This is usually considered an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through the grace received through Chrismation.
In the United States, every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction normally receives Baptized converts through Chrismation. ROCOR usually receives converts by Baptism, however, does allow a Bishop to allow the Chrismation of Catholics and Protestants as an act of economy.
Lately some people have fallen under the influence of Greek Old Calendarists and question this practice. However, they are wrong. The usual practice of the Orthodox Church has been to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation for centuries. In 1755 on his own authority Cyril V of Constantinople issued a decree requiring the Baptism of all converts. However, both the Church of Russia and the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected this decree. Even today, the Patriarchate of Constantinople follows the traditional Orthodox practice and receives Baptized converts by Chrismation.

From personal knowledge, I can tell you that the webmaster of orthodoxinfo.com is not now a member of an Old Calendarist jurisdiction.

True, but there is still plenty of info on the site that can trip up an inquirer.  I know, I was one of them. Smiley

I was another. Wink
A cautionary tale, to be sure.  Tongue

Yeah, well that old "conservative New Calendarist", sitting-on-the-fence line exemplified by Orthodoxinfo.com seems to be dying out (just my impression, could be wrong). Increasingly people seem to realize they have to make a choice: either accept that ecumenism is a heresy and follow that to its logical conclusion, which is to break communion with the ecumenists; or else defend ecumenism as part of Orthodox tradition and cease making an issue out of it.

The problem is that the critics of Orthodox ecumenism attribute a Protestant understanding of ecumenism to Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Protestant understanding of ecumenism. Instead, our representatives at ecumenical gatherings and during dialogues with non-Orthodox make it perfectly clear that union with Orthodoxy can only come after the others have shown us that they accept without reservation the Faith of the ancient undivided Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils as preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is no place in Orthodox ecumenism for compromise on doctrine or sharing of Communion until full and complete agreement has been reached. How is that heretical? We are only talking with people. That is all that is being done despite the multitude of false representations of Orthodox ecumenism being spread by the self-appointed guardians of Orthodoxy. Unlike the critics of Orthodox ecumenism, I have actually represented the Orthodox Church at various ecumenical situations, including the failed North American Orthodox Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogue. Therefore, unlike them, I have actually been there and know what is going on during Orthodox ecumenical gatherings. The Lutherans constantly pressured us to make compromises and we steadfastly refused. Finally, when they realized that we were unwilling to compromise the Orthodox Faith, the Lutherans suspended the dialogue.
I am certain that there is no possibility of union with any Protestant group. Here in the US we do not even have an active dialogue with any Protestant sect. We only have the North American Catholic Orthodox Dialogue. Unless the Catholics are willing to give up Vatican I, there is no possibility of union between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I am dead certain that no Orthodox authority will agree to place ourselves under papal domination. The Ecumenical Patriarch will say nice words to the Pope in Jerusalem but the whole thing is only  photo opportunity. The Ecumenical Patriarch knows that he cannot make any commitments on behalf of world Orthodoxy for union with Rome. He will only state that he supports dialogue.

To the moderator: I am sorry, I did not see your suggestion that further discussions of this topic belong on another thread.
Fr. John  W. Morris.
 
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:42:46 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #76 on: May 13, 2014, 08:36:02 AM »

Fr John, that post was a non sequitur and in fact you are exemplifying the very tendency that I pointed out: that you can't sit on the fence when it comes to ecumenism. Either you accept it and defend it, as you are doing, or you reject it completely, as the GOC is doing. The guy who runs orthodoxinfo.com, Patrick Barnes, who is very admirable in many ways, recognizes that ecumenism is a serious threat to Orthodoxy, but while recognizing the threat he maintains we should remain in communion with it. I was under the impression that fewer and fewer Orthodox follow this line and instead make a choice: either they stop thinking ecumenism is a problem, or they acknowledge that if it is such a big problem, the only course left to them is to end communion with it. Some others here think I am wrong and there are still a lot of "fence-sitters", e.g. in Greece, so I may well be wrong about this trend. But that is a separate issue of whether Orthodox ecumenism is justified, which is not appropriate to discuss here.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,442



« Reply #77 on: May 13, 2014, 08:39:39 AM »

Fr John, that post was a non sequitur and in fact you are exemplifying the very tendency that I pointed out: that you can't sit on the fence when it comes to ecumenism. Either you accept it and defend it, as you are doing, or you reject it completely, as the GOC is doing. The guy who runs orthodoxinfo.com, Patrick Barnes, who is very admirable in many ways, recognizes that ecumenism is a serious threat to Orthodoxy, but while recognizing the threat he maintains we should remain in communion with it. I was under the impression that fewer and fewer Orthodox follow this line and instead make a choice: either they stop thinking ecumenism is a problem, or they acknowledge that if it is such a big problem, the only course left to them is to end communion with it. Some others here think I am wrong and there are still a lot of "fence-sitters", e.g. in Greece, so I may well be wrong about this trend. But that is a separate issue of whether Orthodox ecumenism is justified, which is not appropriate to discuss here.
Perhaps it would be better if you give us your definition of ecumenism. The term means many things to many people.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #78 on: May 13, 2014, 08:56:30 AM »

Fr John, that post was a non sequitur and in fact you are exemplifying the very tendency that I pointed out: that you can't sit on the fence when it comes to ecumenism. Either you accept it and defend it, as you are doing, or you reject it completely, as the GOC is doing. The guy who runs orthodoxinfo.com, Patrick Barnes, who is very admirable in many ways, recognizes that ecumenism is a serious threat to Orthodoxy, but while recognizing the threat he maintains we should remain in communion with it. I was under the impression that fewer and fewer Orthodox follow this line and instead make a choice: either they stop thinking ecumenism is a problem, or they acknowledge that if it is such a big problem, the only course left to them is to end communion with it. Some others here think I am wrong and there are still a lot of "fence-sitters", e.g. in Greece, so I may well be wrong about this trend. But that is a separate issue of whether Orthodox ecumenism is justified, which is not appropriate to discuss here.
Perhaps it would be better if you give us your definition of ecumenism. The term means many things to many people.

It means the belief that non-Orthodox are somehow part of the Church despite having different doctrines. That is the premise for allowing common prayer, for example: while they are not in "full" communion, they are nevertheless part of the Church in a broader sense and so it is appropriate to hold prayer services with them. The GOC, and many conservatives in the State Church, maintain that this itself is not Orthodox, that there is no "Church in a broader sense", but that the heterodox are completely outside the Church and prayer with them is absolutely forbidden. Other aspects of ecumenism include addressing heterodox bishops and clergy as true bishops and clergy in some sense, which is seen by e.g. the reception of the Pope as Bishop of Rome by the late Abp Christodoulos of Athens, or the concelebrations between the EP and the Pope where e.g. the deacon prays for the Pope as Bishop of Rome in the litanies.

If you need more information, I would recommend consulting the website orthodoxinfo.com Wink
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 08:57:06 AM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,442



« Reply #79 on: May 13, 2014, 09:10:14 AM »

Fr John, that post was a non sequitur and in fact you are exemplifying the very tendency that I pointed out: that you can't sit on the fence when it comes to ecumenism. Either you accept it and defend it, as you are doing, or you reject it completely, as the GOC is doing. The guy who runs orthodoxinfo.com, Patrick Barnes, who is very admirable in many ways, recognizes that ecumenism is a serious threat to Orthodoxy, but while recognizing the threat he maintains we should remain in communion with it. I was under the impression that fewer and fewer Orthodox follow this line and instead make a choice: either they stop thinking ecumenism is a problem, or they acknowledge that if it is such a big problem, the only course left to them is to end communion with it. Some others here think I am wrong and there are still a lot of "fence-sitters", e.g. in Greece, so I may well be wrong about this trend. But that is a separate issue of whether Orthodox ecumenism is justified, which is not appropriate to discuss here.
Perhaps it would be better if you give us your definition of ecumenism. The term means many things to many people.

It means the belief that non-Orthodox are somehow part of the Church despite having different doctrines. That is the premise for allowing common prayer, for example: while they are not in "full" communion, they are nevertheless part of the Church in a broader sense and so it is appropriate to hold prayer services with them. The GOC, and many conservatives in the State Church, maintain that this itself is not Orthodox, that there is no "Church in a broader sense", but that the heterodox are completely outside the Church and prayer with them is absolutely forbidden. Other aspects of ecumenism include addressing heterodox bishops and clergy as true bishops and clergy in some sense, which is seen by e.g. the reception of the Pope as Bishop of Rome by the late Abp Christodoulos of Athens, or the concelebrations between the EP and the Pope where e.g. the deacon prays for the Pope as Bishop of Rome in the litanies.

If you need more information, I would recommend consulting the website orthodoxinfo.com Wink
Thanks for the response. I would consider myself somewhat ecumenical, but I don't ascribe to many of the things your said. I would not say non-Orthodox are part of the Church, I would phrase it more that it is possible that individuals outside the Church may be saved as a result of the the Church's work and therefore in some sense may be connected to the Church. That being said, I certainly would not recommend anyone rely on that possiblity and would urge all to join themselves to the Church in full communion. As to what some clergy may or may not do with clergy outside of the Church, that is between them and God.  I am not going to break communion with the Church because things go on inside that I don't agree with. The irony is that the Old Calendarists place themselves outside of the very Church that fight so hard to keep pure.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #80 on: May 13, 2014, 09:24:05 AM »

Fr John, that post was a non sequitur and in fact you are exemplifying the very tendency that I pointed out: that you can't sit on the fence when it comes to ecumenism. Either you accept it and defend it, as you are doing, or you reject it completely, as the GOC is doing. The guy who runs orthodoxinfo.com, Patrick Barnes, who is very admirable in many ways, recognizes that ecumenism is a serious threat to Orthodoxy, but while recognizing the threat he maintains we should remain in communion with it. I was under the impression that fewer and fewer Orthodox follow this line and instead make a choice: either they stop thinking ecumenism is a problem, or they acknowledge that if it is such a big problem, the only course left to them is to end communion with it. Some others here think I am wrong and there are still a lot of "fence-sitters", e.g. in Greece, so I may well be wrong about this trend. But that is a separate issue of whether Orthodox ecumenism is justified, which is not appropriate to discuss here.
Perhaps it would be better if you give us your definition of ecumenism. The term means many things to many people.

It means the belief that non-Orthodox are somehow part of the Church despite having different doctrines. That is the premise for allowing common prayer, for example: while they are not in "full" communion, they are nevertheless part of the Church in a broader sense and so it is appropriate to hold prayer services with them. The GOC, and many conservatives in the State Church, maintain that this itself is not Orthodox, that there is no "Church in a broader sense", but that the heterodox are completely outside the Church and prayer with them is absolutely forbidden. Other aspects of ecumenism include addressing heterodox bishops and clergy as true bishops and clergy in some sense, which is seen by e.g. the reception of the Pope as Bishop of Rome by the late Abp Christodoulos of Athens, or the concelebrations between the EP and the Pope where e.g. the deacon prays for the Pope as Bishop of Rome in the litanies.

If you need more information, I would recommend consulting the website orthodoxinfo.com Wink
Thanks for the response. I would consider myself somewhat ecumenical, but I don't ascribe to many of the things your said. I would not say non-Orthodox are part of the Church, I would phrase it more that it is possible that individuals outside the Church may be saved as a result of the the Church's work and therefore in some sense may be connected to the Church. That being said, I certainly would not recommend anyone rely on that possiblity and would urge all to join themselves to the Church in full communion. As to what some clergy may or may not do with clergy outside of the Church, that is between them and God.  I am not going to break communion with the Church because things go on inside that I don't agree with. The irony is that the Old Calendarists place themselves outside of the very Church that fight so hard to keep pure.

Why are you trying to debate me on the meaning of ecumenism when several moderators have warned us to stay on topic? I thought you were going to tie this in to the discussion about this website, but instead like Fr John you're going off on a tangent.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,543



« Reply #81 on: May 13, 2014, 09:24:14 AM »

Revisiting the OP...

So I have been using this website as a big source because it has so much info and seems to be one of the more official websites to trust. Father told me to avoid blogs and other stuff like that and keep to "official" stuff rather than people's ramblings. So is this a good website?

http://orthodoxinfo.com/

Part of the issue at hand, I think, is that there is no real 'go to' site that is comparable. Some have seemed to make the attempt, and it is my impression that the 'market share' (so to speak) of orthodoxinfo has eroded as competitors have multiplied, but I don't think anyone has yet made a strong case for replacing what it is, or what it was. How things will be 5 years from now is a different matter, but that's a discussion for another thread. And as long as it remains the case (if it indeed is the case) that orthodoxinfo is providing something unique, or at least is the best at that unique thing, the site will continue to be a magnet for people new to orthodoxy.

I'd also like to say more about what it was in the past, which is a somewhat different question than is asked in the OP, and which doesn't necessarily touch on orthodoxinfo directly at first, but which nonetheless is an important element in discussions about orthodoxinfo at places like oc.net. In the early years that site was a very different place, not only because it had more old calendarist and traditionalist content (it seems to me that a good bit of the writings of Archbp. Chrysostomos were removed over the years, for example), but I think even the tone, purpose, etc. were different. When I first found the site I don't recall prominently featured links to epistles readings and saints of the day and such (and never would such things for the new calendar have been there), and there wasn't nearly as much in the way of saintly excerpts or advice unless it had to do with some matter of defending a tradition/custom, establishing some conservative approach to piety, condemning ecumenism, etc. I am not saying that this was wrong, I am just pointing out that the site has broadened it's focus and content.

Someone once brought up (years ago) how orthodoxinfo had managed to not only build a very strong influence over internet discussions of Orthodoxy, but to even frame the discussions, choose the language, establish the arguments to be fought, etc. This was in the early years, which I did not experience or have knowledge of in the 90s, but have been seeing since about 2000ish. It retained the old focus for years and years after that, until the late 00s I believe. The site as it was back in the early days still lingers in the minds of some. And perhaps more importantly, the impact the site had on Orthodox online discussions in general still linger, as well as the memory of the impact it had in the past. I think this is where at least a good chunk (though certainly not all) of the caution and dislike for the site still reside. And that stands to reason: after all, if you haven't been on a site much, and most of what you remember about it is how you read some articles 6 years ago which implied that your bishops were heretics (or for some people, that your entire Church was) or involved with some heresy or schism or something along those lines, then the negative impression is probably not going to go away easily.

I think that if those of us who have been around for a while were seeing this site for the first time, many would have a more positive view of the site than at present. It does still talk about controversial and volatile topics such as 'monophysite heretics' and 'the panheresy of ecumenism,' but overall the site seems much more balanced if what you are looking for is more general practical advice and spiritual guidance. I'm still not sure that I would recommend the site as a whole to those new to this whole Orthodox thing, but I think it has a ton of great individual articles and pages. But the same could be said of a lot of resources I think, from CCEL to New Advent to Jaroslav Pelikan to St. John Chrysostom, which is of course why, as Patrick Barnes himself says on his site, you need to experience and live Orthodoxy in the world, and not simply read about it.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #82 on: May 13, 2014, 11:12:03 AM »

Thanks, Asteriktos. I have used the site for practical things like rules of prayer or advice on confession, though it is also certainly useful for apologetic material. A lot of the practical material itself, though, seems to be promoted with a specific agenda of fighting "modernism" in the Church, i.e. not just doctrinal issues like ecumenism, but excessive laxity in praxis. I think the articles on praxis in particular need to be combined with proper direction by a competent spiritual father and an understanding of the particular traditions of one's church; a convert can easily get the impression that the praxis described in one of those articles is the only "correct" way. It's especially hard for a newcomer to Orthodoxy to know which kinds of laxity represent a real degeneration of Orthodoxy and which kinds are within the pastoral remit of the priest or bishop (which is one reason I'd advise cleaving only to those bishops whose doctrinal confession is pure and then not second-guess their pastoral decisions).

Anastasios told me that Patrick did remove some of the more explicitly pro-Old Calendarist material, no doubt after he left the Synod in Resistance (not sure what jurisdiction he's in now), and there is some stuff now that is anti-Old Calendarist. My impression is that despite the ongoing polemics between the Old Calendarists and New Calendarists, he tries to remain neutral on that question. In one sense that's good for my side, since people reading that site will get the impression that the Old Calendarists have some legitimate grievances and not dismiss them out of hand.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #83 on: May 13, 2014, 12:47:01 PM »

Fr John, that post was a non sequitur and in fact you are exemplifying the very tendency that I pointed out: that you can't sit on the fence when it comes to ecumenism. Either you accept it and defend it, as you are doing, or you reject it completely, as the GOC is doing. The guy who runs orthodoxinfo.com, Patrick Barnes, who is very admirable in many ways, recognizes that ecumenism is a serious threat to Orthodoxy, but while recognizing the threat he maintains we should remain in communion with it. I was under the impression that fewer and fewer Orthodox follow this line and instead make a choice: either they stop thinking ecumenism is a problem, or they acknowledge that if it is such a big problem, the only course left to them is to end communion with it. Some others here think I am wrong and there are still a lot of "fence-sitters", e.g. in Greece, so I may well be wrong about this trend. But that is a separate issue of whether Orthodox ecumenism is justified, which is not appropriate to discuss here.
Perhaps it would be better if you give us your definition of ecumenism. The term means many things to many people.

It means the belief that non-Orthodox are somehow part of the Church despite having different doctrines. That is the premise for allowing common prayer, for example: while they are not in "full" communion, they are nevertheless part of the Church in a broader sense and so it is appropriate to hold prayer services with them. The GOC, and many conservatives in the State Church, maintain that this itself is not Orthodox, that there is no "Church in a broader sense", but that the heterodox are completely outside the Church and prayer with them is absolutely forbidden. Other aspects of ecumenism include addressing heterodox bishops and clergy as true bishops and clergy in some sense, which is seen by e.g. the reception of the Pope as Bishop of Rome by the late Abp Christodoulos of Athens, or the concelebrations between the EP and the Pope where e.g. the deacon prays for the Pope as Bishop of Rome in the litanies.

If you need more information, I would recommend consulting the website orthodoxinfo.com Wink

You have proven my point. Your definition of ecumenism is a Protestant definition that the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects. Orthodox participation in any ecumenical activity is based on the Toronto Statement adopted by the Eastern Orthodox at the meeting of the World Council of Churches in Toronto in 1950 which states that membership in an ecumenical organization such as the World Council of Churches does not imply recognition by the Eastern Orthodox Church of the other bodies as Church in the fullest sense of the word. Other documents such as the Oberlin Statement presented by the Orthodox at a meeting of the North American Faith and Order Study Conference could not be clearer that as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned the Church is not divided, but is instead found fully and completely in the Eastern Orthodox church.
The unity we seek” is for us a given unity which has never been lost, and as a Divine gift and an essential mark of Christian existence, could not have been lost. This unity in the Church of Christ is for us a unity in the historical Church, in the fullness of faith, in the fullness of continuous sacramental life. For us, this unity is embodied in the Orthodox Church, which kept, catholikos and anelleipos, both the integrity of the apostolic faith and the integrity of the apostolic order.
Any common prayer between Orthodox and non Orthodox is done following very strict rules that are meant to show that we are not in Communion and that prayer with non-Orthodox is an exercise of economy. I personally do not agree that we should use economy in this way, but I am not a Bishop, much less the Ecumenical Patriarch. As an Antiochian Priest, I obey my Bishop who forbids such participation in so called ecumenical worship. I think that such activities send the wrong message and create a false illusion that there is a unity that does not in fact exist. However, the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Bishops have a right according to Orthodox canon law to exercise economy on this question.
Fr. John
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #84 on: May 13, 2014, 12:51:10 PM »

Fr John, that post was a non sequitur and in fact you are exemplifying the very tendency that I pointed out: that you can't sit on the fence when it comes to ecumenism. Either you accept it and defend it, as you are doing, or you reject it completely, as the GOC is doing. The guy who runs orthodoxinfo.com, Patrick Barnes, who is very admirable in many ways, recognizes that ecumenism is a serious threat to Orthodoxy, but while recognizing the threat he maintains we should remain in communion with it. I was under the impression that fewer and fewer Orthodox follow this line and instead make a choice: either they stop thinking ecumenism is a problem, or they acknowledge that if it is such a big problem, the only course left to them is to end communion with it. Some others here think I am wrong and there are still a lot of "fence-sitters", e.g. in Greece, so I may well be wrong about this trend. But that is a separate issue of whether Orthodox ecumenism is justified, which is not appropriate to discuss here.
Perhaps it would be better if you give us your definition of ecumenism. The term means many things to many people.

It means the belief that non-Orthodox are somehow part of the Church despite having different doctrines. That is the premise for allowing common prayer, for example: while they are not in "full" communion, they are nevertheless part of the Church in a broader sense and so it is appropriate to hold prayer services with them. The GOC, and many conservatives in the State Church, maintain that this itself is not Orthodox, that there is no "Church in a broader sense", but that the heterodox are completely outside the Church and prayer with them is absolutely forbidden. Other aspects of ecumenism include addressing heterodox bishops and clergy as true bishops and clergy in some sense, which is seen by e.g. the reception of the Pope as Bishop of Rome by the late Abp Christodoulos of Athens, or the concelebrations between the EP and the Pope where e.g. the deacon prays for the Pope as Bishop of Rome in the litanies.

If you need more information, I would recommend consulting the website orthodoxinfo.com Wink

You have proven my point. Your definition of ecumenism is a Protestant definition that the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects. Orthodox participation in any ecumenical activity is based on the Toronto Statement adopted by the Eastern Orthodox at the meeting of the World Council of Churches in Toronto in 1950 which states that membership in an ecumenical organization such as the World Council of Churches does not imply recognition by the Eastern Orthodox Church of the other bodies as Church in the fullest sense of the word. Other documents such as the Oberlin Statement presented by the Orthodox at a meeting of the North American Faith and Order Study Conference could not be clearer that as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned the Church is not divided, but is instead found fully and completely in the Eastern Orthodox church.
The unity we seek” is for us a given unity which has never been lost, and as a Divine gift and an essential mark of Christian existence, could not have been lost. This unity in the Church of Christ is for us a unity in the historical Church, in the fullness of faith, in the fullness of continuous sacramental life. For us, this unity is embodied in the Orthodox Church, which kept, catholikos and anelleipos, both the integrity of the apostolic faith and the integrity of the apostolic order.
Any common prayer between Orthodox and non Orthodox is done following very strict rules that are meant to show that we are not in Communion and that prayer with non-Orthodox is an exercise of economy. I personally do not agree that we should use economy in this way, but I am not a Bishop, much less the Ecumenical Patriarch. As an Antiochian Priest, I obey my Bishop who forbids such participation in so called ecumenical worship. I think that such activities send the wrong message and create a false illusion that there is a unity that does not in fact exist. However, the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Bishops have a right according to Orthodox canon law to exercise economy on this question.
Fr. John

Why are you still debating this when you yourself admit that this is off-topic? Are you really that without self-control?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,442



« Reply #85 on: May 13, 2014, 12:54:16 PM »

Yes, we've never had a topic go offtopic before.  The horrors!  Roll Eyes
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #86 on: May 13, 2014, 12:56:02 PM »

Yes, we've never had a topic go offtopic before.  The horrors!  Roll Eyes

Except the moderator explicitly weighed in above to warn us about this topic on the convert forum. Or do you just never pay attention to them?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,442



« Reply #87 on: May 13, 2014, 01:04:22 PM »

Yes, we've never had a topic go offtopic before.  The horrors!  Roll Eyes

Except the moderator explicitly weighed in above to warn us about this topic on the convert forum. Or do you just never pay attention to them?
I am discussing neither St. Cyprian nor the re-baptism controversy. If they want to tell me to limit my posting, I shall gladly follow that directive.  Until that time, I do not believe they need your assistance in moderating the forum.  If that changes, I'm sure they will let all of us know.  Smiley
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #88 on: May 13, 2014, 01:06:48 PM »

Yes, we've never had a topic go offtopic before.  The horrors!  Roll Eyes

Except the moderator explicitly weighed in above to warn us about this topic on the convert forum. Or do you just never pay attention to them?
I am discussing neither St. Cyprian nor the re-baptism controversy. If they want to tell me to limit my posting, I shall gladly follow that directive.  Until that time, I do not believe they need your assistance in moderating the forum.  If that changes, I'm sure they will let all of us know.  Smiley

Forgive me, I thought he had told us to avoid the topic of ecumenism entirely. I take it back then!
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,293



« Reply #89 on: May 13, 2014, 02:53:37 PM »


The problem is that the critics of Orthodox ecumenism attribute a Protestant understanding of ecumenism to Orthodox.
 

The problem with this statement is that it displays an ignorance of Protestantism. So, you think that all Protestants see things the same way? I assure you that they do not. I didn't just sit with them, but actually taught and led some of them. Also, which Lutherans did you sit with? ELCA? Confessional? It makes a big difference since the latter do not consider the former to be Lutheran, and possibly not even Christian. There are some Protestants who believe that anyone who believes in Jesus is the Church. There are others who believe that there is no Salvation outside of the Church, and they are the Church. So, what is this universal understanding of Protestants of which you speak? The ones who support ecumenism and are members of the WCC, or those who will have no part of ecumenism and either attend as observers or just avoid the whole mess altogether.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  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 0.266 seconds with 72 queries.