Moderator: Mark Templet
Euthymios wrote:Theophan, Gregory was not defrocked. This is another internet lie. He was "excommunicated." There is a difference between defrockment and excommunication. And his excommunication was not even valid or canonical.
Gregory was defrocked by the GOC.
ROAC should never have accepted them though I think they have been punished enough for doing so.
Theophan.
No second baptism takes place if the first is administered by heretics, and therefore is no baptism at all, but rather a pollution, as the Fathers say.
Which jurisdiction was your friend coming from when she was rebaptized?
The sacred Synod of ROCA under blessed Met. Philaret could also be accused of fanaticism using this same argument.
It's not a question of one method of reception being absolutely right and the other wrong, it's a question of a rigorist application of the canons vs. economia, which should be left to the bishops to decide.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD
15/28 September, 1971
On the question of the baptism of heretics who accept Orthodoxy the following resolution was passed:
The Holy Church has from old believed that there can be but one true baptism, namely that which is performed within her bosom: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). In the Symbol of Faith "one baptism" is also confessed, while canon 46 of the holy apostles decrees: "we order any bishop, or presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed."
However, when the zeal of any of the heretics weakened in their battle with the Church, or when the question of their mass conversion to Orthodoxy arose, the Church, to facilitate their union, received them into her bosom through another form. In his first canon, which was incorporated into the decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, St. Basil the Great indicates the existence of various practices in the reception of heretics in different countries. He explains that every separation from the Church deprives one of grace and writes concerning schismatics: "The beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the fathers and with the impartation of their hands had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore, they [the ancient partisans of Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian] bade that those baptized by them [the heretics] should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that, when they came to join the Church, they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church". However, "for the sake of the edification of many," St. Basil does not object to the use of another form of reception for the schismatic Cathari in Asia. Concerning the Encratites he writes: "If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy" [of the Church], another practice may be employed, explaining it in this way: "For I am inclined to suspect that we may, by the severity of the prescription actually prevent men from being saved. . ."
Thus, St. Basil the Great, and through his words the Ecumenical Council, while confirming the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church there is no true Baptism, allows through pastoral condescension the reception, called economy, of certain heretics and schismatics without a new baptism. In conformity with such a principle, the Ecumenical Councils permitted the reception of heretics in various ways, corresponding to the weakening of their embitterment against the Orthodox Church.
The Kormchaya Kniga (the Slavonic Rudder) cites an explanation of this by Timothy of Alexandria. To the question: "Why do we not baptize heretics who have converted to the Catholic Church?" he replies: "If this were not so, man would not readily turn away from heresy, being ashamed of baptism [i.e. a second baptism], knowing moreover that the Holy Spirit comes even through the laying-on of a priest's hands and through prayers, as the Acts of the Holy Apostles testify."
With regard to Roman Catholics and Protestants who claim to have preserved baptism as a mystery (e.g. the Lutherans), in Russia since the time of Peter I the practice has been followed of receiving them without baptism, through the renunciation of their heresy and by the chrismation of Protestants and unconfirmed Catholics. Until Peter's reign, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In Greece the practice also varied, but for the past almost 300 years after a certain interval, the practice of baptizing those converting from Catholicism and Protestantism was again introduced. Those received in another manner are not recognized as Orthodox in Greece. There have been many cases in which such members of our Russian Church have not been admitted to Holy Communion.
Having in mind this circumstance and the growth today of the heresy of ecumenism, which attempts to eradicate completely the distinction between Orthodoxy and all the heresies, so that the Moscow Patriarchate, in violation of the sacred canons, has even issued a resolution permitting Roman Catholics to receive Communion in certain cases, the Council of Bishops recognizes the necessity of introducing a stricter practice, i.e. that baptism be performed on all heretics who come to the Church, excepting only as the necessity arises and with the permission of the bishop, for reasons of economy or pastoral condescension, another practice of reception in the case of certain persons (i.e. the reception into the Church of Roman Catholics and those Protestants who perform their baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity) through the renunciation of their heresy and by chrismation.
Translated from: Orthodox Russia, Vol. 42, #20 (15/28 Nov., 1971), p. 12. This article and the resolution was published in Orthodox Life, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1979, pp. 35-43.
I read that Chrismation will rectify an un-Canonical baptism. It will breath life into a dead form. I don't remember where I read this.
But, a second baptism is not required if it was done with triple immersion in the name of the HOLY TRINITY, the first time.
The reception of papist members into the Orthodox Church should be baptised(immersed), in these days, because they have adopted the sprinkling and not kept the tradition of the triple immersion. But, in the earlier centuries, they were still using the method of triple immersion.
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)
joasia wrote:Ok. We're getting nowhere with this. You made your posts. They were not perceived positively by others here and that is where I got my impression of you.
Who are those "others"? Again, I saw no complaints from anyone but you.
joasia wrote:Do your responses here indicate that you have the spiritual dexterity to pursue monastic rigor? What I mean is, that your aggressive responses certainly do not constitute a pre-requistion of monastism...humility, patience, love for God. You are too full of anger.
You should have some humity. Seriously. You are not a monastic and not qualified to address or deal with those in that estate. You have no idea of the battles, sacrifices and spiritual warfare I have and go through on a daily basis. So please don't lecture me. Most (if not all) of anyone else would not survice 48 hours in my shoes, and would have most certainly put a bullet in their head years ago. I have survived unimaginable sufferings for my faith. People should be thankful I am even still alive. You have no idea how demons attack monastics and monastic aspirants and especially me. Don't lecture me.
joasia wrote:I don't know these "spiritual fathers" that have guided you, but I'm guessing that they are with the new calendar.
I'm a traditionalist. I theorize this might be why I am so screwed-up. And I am a faithful traditionalist. I have not communed since the first half of 2006 because of my principles to traditionalism. I won't even step foot in a New Calendar church! DON'E PRESUME TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME! HAVE YOU SUFFERED FOR THE TRADITIONAL CAUSE?
joasia wrote:How many spiritual fathers do you have? I thought we only need one.
They all fell away from the faith into eccumenism or schism.
joasia wrote:A triple immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity is an acceptable baptism. It shouldn't be repeated. If it's done under a heretical bishop, it can be rectified by Holy Chrismation.
So if a Gnostic baptizes in the name of the Holy Trinity its acceptable? Or how about a Mormon?
And my spiritual fathers who actually knew and interacted with me, believed I was called to monasticism. So your opinion means nothing to me. And as I said, you don't know the level of warfare people who are dead to the world have. The more serious people are toward God, the more intense the warfare. Most monks today are only monks in theory. They're a complete joke. I don't even know why some (if not most) of them are even in monasteries.
Euthymios wrote:"Gregory was defrocked by the GOC."
My Response: On what grounds? And Can you refer me to a source proving that?
Contact Bishop Christodulos again.
He will be able to send you the details.
The GOC should never have accepted Gregory and was punished for doing so by his following campaign aganist us. Nate's blog has taken that to new lows.
After that he joined the Lamian Synod which I am told is schismatic with a capital "S" but personally as I dont know all the details about them I am refraining from judgement.
I would suggest that you write to or phone them aswell and ask them personally what they make of monk Gregory.
Theophan.