Moderator: Mark Templet
Daniel,
I tried to read as much as I could of anastasios' links, but did you see anything credible that says the Church at any time recognized that the heretics had a baptism? I didn't.
It seems to me the only thing the new-calendarists ever accomplish is casting a cloud of doubt over the method of reception.
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:Daniel,
I tried to read as much as I could of anastasios' links, but did you see anything credible that says the Church at any time recognized that the heretics had a baptism? I didn't.
It seems to me the only thing the new-calendarists ever accomplish is casting a cloud of doubt over the method of reception.
To be honest, I haven't read the first link, and the second I only have read parts and that was some months ago.
Actually OOD from my reading of the canons and those articles it is quite clear that the church accepted non-Orthodox baptism in certain cases and hence did not repeat it. Only in the 19th century did the Kollyvades fathers cast doubt on this practice and define their theory -- which was never accepted by the Russian Church -- that there is such a thing as ekonomia that can make something out of nothing. If heretical baptisms cannot exist then everyone should be baptised, period, and ekonomia does not work. If some non-Orthodox baptism can be accepted as imperfect but still real in some sense, then ekonomia makes sense.
The Church would not have deliniated in Trullo Canon 95 that there are different modes of reception--based quite clearly on how far from the church the group in question had deviated--if it did not distinguish degrees of validity in the non-Orthodox baptism. It's quite clear that those rebaptised -- and the term used is RE baptism -- are done so because they have the wrong conception of the Trinity such as Gnostics and Manicheans. Others were merely chrismated because they were not fully cut off by their teachings (which were on the level of error but not Trinity-denying) and still others were given the confession of faith such as the Nestorians and Monophysites. It can't be more clear than that and the modern day "allmustbebaptised" groups do cartwheels trying to prove from the fathers that all non-Orthodox baptisms are invalid. Of course they can't do that since it is not historical so they throw out the boogeyman title "ecumenist!!!" and scare people off from the truth.
I am not against the principle of baptising Protestants but to say that all people must be baptised because that is historical is silly.
anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
my above post can be summed up thusly: you "baptiseeveryone" partisans claim that no Father ever said heretical baptisms counted explicitly, hence they did not teach it. I say that because the practice is clear, that modes were differentiated, that that is proof in and of itself, something that was SO clear that they did not NEED to explicitly state it.
The development of the Kollyvades Fathers can NOT be put on the level of dogma, even though in my personal opinion I tend to be swayed towards baptising most converts.
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
Anastasios,
Recognizing a heretical baptism and accepting people by economia are two vastly different ideas that have no relationship.
Which Ecumenical Council ordered that any priest who recognizes a heretical baptism be deposed? I forgot.
At it seems to me that another Ecumenical council declared the same.
This is clear enough an in stark contrast to your idea that there was some undeclared acknowledgment.
So lets be clear. Which Holy Father said heretical baptisms where salvific? Because all I have ever seen is the fathers calling them "pollution", and "impious".
Daniel wrote:I have a question that I want answered.
What canon or Father prohibits or forbids the rebaptism of heretics/schismatics?
The Fathers clearly made distinctions between the baptisms of various heretics. None of them of course are valid in themselves, but some are baptised while others are only Chrisimated, and yet others only sign renouncements of their heresies. Reception into the Church by economia is nothing new, and was not started by the New Calendarists. It was started by the Fathers.
It seems to me that the following Canon makes this clear distinction between the baptisms of various heretics. The Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Cathari, Aristeroi, and Tessareskaidekatitae are recieved by renouncing heresy and Chrisimation. Whereas the Paulianists, Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, Manichaeans, Valentinians, and Marcionites are Baptized. The Nestorians are only required to make written statements renouncing their heresy and anathamizing it and it's leaders.
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.
In Christ,
George