OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
The canon of St. Basil, if you study it carefully, groups schismatics with heretics and heretics with schismatics when describing the method of reception. This is because it did not matter if they were schismatic or not, all things being equal, that is, they were all outside the Church,
Dear in Christ OOD,
If all heretics are outside the Church, this would place St. Gregory of Nyssa outside the Church, since he held and taught the heretical doctrine of Origenism. This would also place Blessed Augustine of Hippo outside the Church for his heretical views on the Fall. This would place many Saints and Venerable ones outside the Church. I will explain myself further on this below.
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
the Holy Fathers were only concerned with the form of baptism these groups practiced. If it was an Orthodox form, then economia could be applied giving life to an otherwise meaningless baptism. If it they corrupted the form, then exactness was applied.
This is not quite correct in regards to this Canon. Clearly in this Canon, form alone did not determine whether akrevia (exactness) or economia were applied. According to Canon 95 of the Sixth Council, the Arians were only Chrisimated to be recieved into the Church. If the correct form of Baptism requires three imersions and emersions in the Name of each Person of the Holy Trinity, how was Arian baptism an 'acceptable form' of baptism if they did not even believe in the the Divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity, nor in the Triune God and did not triply immerse, nor pronounce the Names of the Three Persons of the Trinity?
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
But in no way did they recognize any baptism outside the Church.
As I have stated before (not to you), please, any new-calendarist defender show me anywhere the Holy Fathers of the Church recognized a baptism outside the Church - as there is an overwhelming and incredible amount of testimony to the contrary, Daniels above post as just one example.
I agree that there is no Grace in the baptisms of schismatics- those outside the Church. But as we see in the case of many of the Saints and Venerable ones in the Church who held some heretical views, it cannot be said that heresy 'automatically' places one outside the Church.
We know that the pronouncement of an Ecumenical Council does not add new doctrines, but simply clarifies what is already the Teaching of the Church. So Iconoclasm was an heresy, even before the Seventh Ecumenical Council according to the Teaching of the Church, but there was some dispute prior to the Seventh Ecumenical Council as to whether it was a Church Teaching or not. If an heresy is not clearly pronounced anathema by a Council then those who hold it cannot be truly said to be cut off from the Church. If this were the case, then any current Bishop, Priest or Deacon (including both yours and mine) who's Baptism, Chrisimation or Chierotonia derives by succession from an Iconoclast Bishop or Priest who lived in the two generations of this heresy's life in the Church (ie, the 70 years of this heresy before the Seventh Ecumenical Council) would be invalid, since they would have derived from clergy "outside the Church" as you say. For example, let's say 'Priest X' was an 8th century Iconoclast just before the Seventh Council. Priest X baptises and Chrisimates 'Mr. Y'. 'Mr. Y' grows up, visits St. Irene of Chryssovolantu and becomes an Iconodule. The Seventh Council then takes place and anathemises the Iconoclasts, then 'Mr. Y' becomes a Deacon and then 'Priest Y' who then Baptizes and Chrisimates 'Mr. Z' who then becomes "Bishop Z' who then ordains Priests and co-consecrates Bishops. If what you say is true, then every Layman, Deacon, Priest or Bishop who recieved their Mysteries of Initiation and/or Ordination from this line is outside the Church, since they all depend on the presence of Grace or not in the original Baptism and Chrisimation of 'Mr. Y' by the heretical 'Priest X'. If this is the case, then none of us can ever be sure if we are in the Church or not.
By extrapolation, those Bishops who honestly don't realise that they are holding and teaching doctrines contrary to the Teaching of the Church when they embrace the modern heresy of ecumenism for example, also leave the same question mark as well.
If we pray in the Divine Liturgy for our Bishop, that he will 'rightly divide the word of truth,' it is because there are times when any Orthodox Bishop can wrongly divide the word of truth since we do not accept the blasphemous and heretical 'doctrine of infallibility' of the latins.
In my 'heart of hearts', OOD, I know that ecumenism is heresy, but for every Father and Canon I quote to explain my position to ecumenists, they quote another Father or Canon to explain their position. I'm inclined to believe that only a future Council or the Second Parousia of Christ, whichever comes first, will clarify this question once and for all.
In Christ,
George
