Appeal of the First Heirarch of the ROAC to ROCOR(L)

[canonical]

I may dislike Al intently, and he is entitled to his own views about my own church, ....

You never did answer my question: why do you dislike me so intently?

Al

[CGW]

I may dislike Al intently, and he is entitled to his own views about my own church, ....

You never did answer my question: why do you dislike me so intently?

I don't consider it a matter for public discussion-- and perhaps I don't dislike you as much as did before.

[CGW]

Please read "About Sergianism" on St. Vladimir's website. http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/about-sergianism.html
It gives a great overview of the subject and makes clear why there can be no union with the so called "mother church" as it is an instrument of satan.

Well, it doesn't seem to me to make anything clear. If I didn't know something about the situation I wouldn't have been able to follow that politcal sermon at all.

[canonical]

When I moved to Minneapolis I could have gone to one of the three Ukrainian Churches(under Bart) which is were I was when I live in Florida, but didn't because I could no longer accept being a group whose bishop thought that the Methodist's 'bapstism' was salvific.

I was born, baptized and raised a Methodist. When I converted to Orthodoxy, the MP parish priest told me that my Chrismation corrects any deficiencies in nonOrthodox baptisms. This was done, of course, with the approval of the bishop of Moscow's old Metropolia of North America.

Of course, I understand that there are those in Orthodoxy who do not believe and who teach, that Chrismation corrects nothing. This, to me, trivializes Chrismation.

Indeed, St Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council, while establishing the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church there is no valid baptism, allows through pastoral condescension, called economy, the reception of some heretics and dissidents without a new baptism.

Also, in Russia, with regard to Roman Catholics and those Protestants who claim to have preserved baptism as a sacrament (for example, the Lutherans), since the time of Peter I the practice was introduced of receiving them without baptism, through a renunciation of heresy and the Chrismation of Protestants and unconfirmed Catholics. Before Peter, Catholics were baptized in Russia.

Even ROCOR priests have accepted converts by Chrismation only.

Would anyone dare to call me a nonOrthodox because I received Chrismation only?

Al

[canonical]

I don't consider it a matter for public discussion-- and perhaps I don't dislike you as much as did before.

Okay, although I would not have minded your stating the reasons publicly since that is the route you originally decided to take.

I might add that since I don't know who you are, I can't possibly dislike you!

As Telly Savalas used to say as "Kojak": Who loves ya, baby?

Al

[Justin Kissel]

Al,

I am in the same boat, so to speak, as you. I was baptized RC as an infant, and then later chrismated in the Antiochian Church. I was also married in the Antiochian Church. Every time I think about this issue (and this is how it relates to me, only you know how relevant this is to you ), it comes down to two points.

1) Chrismation does not "fill in" what was "lacking," as most world Orthodox jurisdictions now say. Chrismation gives to us what was never there before--a special kind of grace that one receives when they enter into the (divine) life of the Church of God. Therefore, I can totally understand and agree with those who insist on baptising converts to the Church (from RCism, Protestantism, etc.). If they aren't baptized, I don't think that makes them lesser Christians--but certainly this allowance (through the grace of God) shouldn't be abused and become the rule rather than the exception.

2) I have the same feelings about both my marriage and my chrismation in the Antiochian Church--one of accepted and non-worried agnosticism. What I mean is, whatever the status (sacramental or not) of the marriage, chrismation and communion that I experienced in the Antiochian Church, it is unimportant now. Whatever my status might have been at that time, I have since then attended parishes and participated in the sacraments that I have no doubts whatsoever about. This is not a good path to follow--but I believe, having ended up on this path, God allowed me to come to him on it. When we read the hagiography of the Church, there are an amazing number of strange occurences having to do with the sacraments (from martyrs baptizing themselves because no priest was near, to Saint Gregory the Theologian's sister going into the altar and taking some of the communion and wiping it on her body, to many other very unique things). These strange, unique, allowances--done by saints, through divine guidance I would assume--help to show us that one need not be black and white about who is and isn't in the Church, and how they get there... but then, that isn't to say that we should make the exceptions into a rule.

[Daniel]

Indeed, St Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council, while establishing the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church there is no valid baptism, allows through pastoral condescension, called economy, the reception of some heretics and dissidents without a new baptism.

Also, in Russia, with regard to Roman Catholics and those Protestants who claim to have preserved baptism as a sacrament (for example, the Lutherans), since the time of Peter I the practice was introduced of receiving them without baptism, through a renunciation of heresy and the Chrismation of Protestants and unconfirmed Catholics. Before Peter, Catholics were baptized in Russia.

I haven't denied that the Church allows for economy, but from what I have read the Church allowed those heretics that preserved the Apostolic Baptism (3 dunks underwater), to only be Chrismated. Any corruption of the form required the convert to be baptized. My Methodist 'baptism' was by sprinkling and there for can not even be concidered baptism, thusly I was received by an abuse of economy. SCOBA also recognizes Baptist 'baptism', and I've only ever seen them do sinlge immersion, which would require them to be baptized.

Pouring and Sprinkling were not common in the West at the time the Russian Church changed it's rule for receiveing converts.

And again, just because there are canons that allow for the use of economy, does not mean that to baptise all converts is 're-baptising' them. They never were baptised to begin with.