Why traditionalists Baptize heretics, Split from The OCA

[Daniel]

Since this thread is starting to get into the OCA's practices on receiving converts, I thought I would post a link to some Canons Dealing with Baptism.

I want to point out Canon 95 from the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Canon 95 of the Holy and Sixth Ecumenical Council
Affirmed and Upheld by the Sixth Ecumenical Council

As for heretics who convert to Orthodoxy and join the portion of the saved, we receive them in accordance with the following procedure and custom: We receive Arians, and Macedonians, and Novatians who call themselves Catharoi and Aristeroi, and Tessareskaidekatitae otherwise known as Tetraditae, and Apollinarists, when they submit written statements, and anathematize every heresy that does not believe as the holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church of God believes, and are first sealed, i.e. chrismated, with holy Myron on the forehead, and the eyes, and the nose, and the mouth, and the ears; and in sealing them we say: "Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Concerning the Paulianists, however, who subsequently took refuge in the catholic Church, a definition has been promulgated that they be rebaptized without fail. Eunomians who are baptized with one immersion, and Montanists who in this [City] are called Phrygians, and Sabellians who believe in the son-fatherhood [of Christ], and who do other evil things as well; and all other heresies (for there are many hereabout, especially those hailing from the region of the Galatians), all of them that wish to join Orthodoxy we receive as pagans. And on the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens. Then on the third day we exorcise them with the threefold blowing into their face and ears. And then we catechize them, and oblige them to spend sufficient time in the church and to listen to the Scriptures. And then we baptize them. And likewise Manichaeans, and Valentinians, and Marcionites, and those from similar heresies.

Nestorians are required to make written statements, and to anathematize their heresy and Nestorios, Eutyches and Dioscoros and Severos, and the rest of the leaders of such heresies, as well as those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies; and thus they may partake of Holy Communion.

Would anyone be interested in discussing this canon in a seperate thread?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

You said:

Oh my gosh, it is obvious you did not read the whole article!! He takes on Cyprian and clearly shows that the Church never accepted Cyprian's teaching as a whole in Part 1 of the work!

I have honestly looked and could not find this. Could you please post the referred to text as a favor?

I think what you just said is impossible since the canon Daniel just cited is part of St. Cyprians canons which were accepted by an ecumenical council. Which proves the opposite is true.

Despite what the Ecumenists would have you beleive, the Church has always been clear on this baptism outside the Church, and the Church does not contradict herself.

[Mor Ephrem]

"Nestorians are required to make written statements, and to anathematize their heresy and Nestorios, Eutyches and Dioscoros and Severos, and the rest of the leaders of such heresies, as well as those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies; and thus they may partake of Holy Communion."

I presume the inclusion of Dioscoros and Severios means that this includes all non-Chalcedonians. I have a question, then. The sense I've gotten from some of you is that if I wanted to join one of your jurisdictions (for the purposes of this discussion, "The Orthodox Church"), I'd have to be baptised. But this canon doesn't seem to require nearly as much. So are you wrong? Have I interpreted you wrong? Has something changed to make this canon not apply in the same way?

[Savva24]

"Nestorians are required to make written statements, and to anathematize their heresy and Nestorios, Eutyches and Dioscoros and Severos, and the rest of the leaders of such heresies, as well as those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies; and thus they may partake of Holy Communion."

I presume the inclusion of Dioscoros and Severios means that this includes all non-Chalcedonians. I have a question, then. The sense I've gotten from some of you is that if I wanted to join one of your jurisdictions (for the purposes of this discussion, "The Orthodox Church"), I'd have to be baptised. But this canon doesn't seem to require nearly as much. So are you wrong? Have I interpreted you wrong? Has something changed to make this canon not apply in the same way?

Good question!

I often heard that Bishop Anthony of San Francisco of Blessed Memory (ROCOR) would recieve Copts, Ethiopians ect, through Confession and Communion. One of old Caledar Greek bishop had some pretty harsh words about that when we explained that to him a few years ago. But it seems after all that it is a perfectly valid practice in lew of Tradition.

In Christ,

Nicholas (savva)

Nicholas

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

The Russians, since Peter the Great, have always had an "errant" method of receiving converts. This is witnessed by the bishops and Patriarchs who met in council in the early 1600's (as soon as the errors became known) to list the "errors of the Russians".

Mor Ephrem, which canon is that?

[Mor Ephrem]

Dear OOD,

I quoted it from one of several posts above that use it. I believe it is the 95th canon of the sixth council.

To all:

Does anyone know of any place where I can read the stories of people who joined EOxy from the non-Chalcedonian Churches? I'm curious to hear their perspectives.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Mor Ephrem,

Thank you for indulging my lazinness.

I hope to respond to the text of the canon later, but I would just like to point out in the mean time that this same council clearly says:

Decreeing now also by vote what we firmly and securely hold for all time, we declare that no one can possibly be baptized outside the catholic Church, there being but one baptism, and this existing only in the catholic Church. For it has been written: "They have forsaken me the fountain of living water, and they dug for themselves broken cisterns that cannot hold water" (Jer. 2:13). And, again, Holy Scripture forewarning says: "Keep away from another's water, and drink not from another's well" (cf. Pr. 5:15).
...

Moreover, it is necessary that he who has been baptized be chrismated, so that receiving the chrism he become a partaker of Christ. But the heretic cannot sanctify oil, seeing that he has neither altar nor Church. It is not possible for there to exist any chrism whatsoever among the heretics. For it is obvious to us that oil can by no means be sanctified among them for such worthy use. And we ought to know and not ignore that it has been written: "Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head," which the Holy Spirit even long ago declared in the Psalms (140:6); lest anyone be tracked down and led astray from the right way and be chrismated by the heretics, the enemies of Christ.

So I would ask, why wouldn't someone coming from one of these heresies not want to be received by "strictness"?