Jerusalem Patriarchate - Oros of 1775

[George Australia]

Dear in Christ, OOD,
I have had to break down your last post into five sections in order to let you know how I went with your suggestions

I was in the OCA at one time and have had the opportunity to discuss this issue with a half-dozen of their priests at one time or another. I have found that this is in fact their belief, and it is by no means limited to the Latins.

If I lived in 8th century Costatinople, I'm sure I could have found at least six Iconoclast priests- however, I could not say that Iconoclasm was a teaching of the Church in Constantinople on the basis of this.

If I recall, there have been people on this forum who have made inquiries to the OCA "official" website and received the same results.

I did a google search of euphrosynoscafe.com with the keywords "OCA, baptism" with no results:
Your search - +OCA +baptism site:euphrosynoscafe.com - did not match any documents

And if you explore orthodoxinfo.com, you will also find that the Dean of St. Vlad's - Erickson (sp?), the layman who trains their priests, also believes this as well as Hopko and Schmemann.

I also did a Google site search of the orthodoxinfo.com website using several combinations of keywords with no results. Here are some examples of the results:
Your search - St. Vladmir's Seminary Dean site:orthodoxinfo.com - did not match any documents
Your search - Vladmir's Seminary site:orthodoxinfo.com - did not match any documents
Your search - Erickson site:orthodoxinfo.com - did not match any documents
Your search - Erikson site:orthodoxinfo.com - did not match any documents
Your search - Hopko site:orthodoxinfo.com - did not match any documents
Your search - Schmemann site:orthodoxinfo.com - did not match any documents

This beleif is also exhibited strongly in their practice. It is a high crime in the OCA to "baptize" someone like their bishop Tikhon who claims to have received the Baptism of the Church by the Lutherans!

As discussed earlier in this thread, if St. Basil the Great wrote a Canon accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council which states that all Arians are to be received into the Church through Chrisimation, and all Nestorians are to be recieved into the Church without any Mysterion at all, but merely by signing retractions of their heresy, then the OCA is not innovating by stating that all Lutherans are to be received by Chrisimation.

And besides, how does a "un-official" document make its way to the internet and "officially" posted on "official" websites of certain synods (the State church of Greece is one), especially since this espouses an ecclesiastical heresy? Where is the "official" denounciation of this "unofficial" document?

I went to the Church of Greece website and hit the link to "Ecumenism." The statement is certainly there, but again, it's precence signifies no official recognition. This is further evidenced by the fact that on the same page is Archbishop Christodoulos’ speech in international academic symposium “Orthodox Theology and Ecumenical dialogue” 1-3 June, 2003.
I would say that this is an "official voice of the Church of Greece. What is surprising is that these are the words of a New Calendarist ecumenist. Here are some quotes from it:

'we accept neither the “branch theory”, nor the theory of “shared truth”.'
"We enter into the dialogues with love in Christ for our Christian brothers and sisters and with respect for them. But love is neither compromise, nor syncretism, but the confession in humility in our part, of the Truth in Christ."
"We cannot, therefore, accept the Tradition of the Church to be ignored, especially since this tradition was united at the first centuries; nor can we accept a form of tolerance that a part of the Church can retain its own positions on essential issues of Faith and pastoral care that are alien and opposite to the positions of the seven Ecumenical Councils."

Together with this, on the same page with the "ecumenism" links on the Church of Greece website is paper presented by Fr. George Dragas The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church which was read at the Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogue in the US in 1998. This paper is probably one of the best explanations of the reception into the Church through akrivia and economia, quoting extensively from the Fathers and the Canons, and clearly stating that Roman Catholic baptism is inadequate for initiation into the Church.

I'm not simply trying to be be difficult OOD. The only way any question or dispute can be resolved is if we honestly seek the truth. I still see no evidence that any Church claiming the title "Canonical Orthodox" (including the OCA) recognises baptisms outside the Church.

In Christ,
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

...then the OCA is not innovating by stating that all Lutherans are to be received by Chrisimation.

I would say this practice was an error because the Lutherans do not practice the form of an Orthodox baptism. But to be clear, I never at any time said that the OCA was in heresy for their errant methods of receptions.

I have said, that they recognize the heretical dippings as Baptisms of the Church, which is in fact an ecclesiastical heresy to say the least.

Now, I found all of those documents you could not seem to find. If I post them in my next thread, what will that do? Convince you? Or will you then say, "oh, this is just the opinion of certain people." ?

But George, don't mistake my efforts as trying to convince you of anything. I firmly believe there are many people who do not want the truth and will do whatever it takes to deny it. After all, Balamand by itself is enough to declare these ecumenist WCC loving members all outside the Church.

In addition, the Orthodox separated themselves from the iconoclasts and did not commune with them, despite there not have been a council to condemn them. So if your point was to mean that iconoclasts were at one time part of the Church of Christ, you are sorley wrong. They were cast out immediatley.

.

[George Australia]

I have said, that they recognize the heretical dippings as Baptisms of the Church, which is in fact an ecclesiastical heresy to say the least..

Dear in Christ OOD,
Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question, but would you please, please clarify for me the difference between the "heretical dipping" of a Lutheran, and the "heretical dipping" of an Arian? Are they not both equally "heretical dippings"? St. Athanasius says that the Arians "do not baptise into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature", so if the Arians were not baptisizing into the Holy Trinity, their form of batism is not correct, why then is their baptism different from Lutheran baptism? Why are you condemning the OCA for receiving Lutherans by Chrisimation, and yet applaud St. Basil the Great for receiving Arians by Chrisimation and Nestorians by signing a libellus? This is what I can't get my head around.

Now, I found all of those documents you could not seem to find. If I post them in my next thread, what will that do? Convince you? Or will you then say, "oh, this is just the opinion of certain people." ?

Dear OOD,
Could you please post links to the websites in this thread. But to be fair, I quoted the First Heirarch of the Church of Greece in my last response- if you can match that in your response in reference to the OCA, it will surely carry more weight than a non-member of the Synod of the OCA. You surely would not wish me to make conclusions about the Orthodoxy of your own juristiction based on what a layman or priest said about it?

But George, don't mistake my efforts as trying to convince you of anything. I firmly believe there are many people who do not want the truth and will do whatever it takes to deny it. After all, Balamand by itself is enough to declare these ecumenist WCC loving members all outside the Church.

I don't mistake your efforts as an attempt to convince me of anything. I agree with Met. Vitaly's advise to his theology students: we are, each of us, now responsible for the whole of the Truth of Orthodox Christianity. I take this very seriously, which means that all my decisions are weighed very heavily. If I ask for evidence, it is not without reason- the whole of Orthodoxy rests with each of us, so we must live circumspectly, "redeeming the time, because the days are evil."

In addition, the Orthodox separated themselves from the iconoclasts and did not commune with them, despite there not have been a council to condemn them. So if your point was to mean that iconoclasts were at one time part of the Church of Christ, you are sorley wrong. They were cast out immediatley.

How can you say that the Iconoclasts were immediatley thrown out of the Church, when we read in the Life of St. Patriarch Methodios I (14th June) how much he suffered at the hands of the Iconoclasts "whom he had Communed by his own holy hands when a Priest"?

In Christ,
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

You said: "Why are you condemning the OCA for receiving Lutherans by Chrisimation, and yet applaud St. Basil the Great for receiving Arians by Chrisimation ..."

I don't how to put this in any simpilar language but I will try. The OCA is self-condemned according to the Apostolic Canons for recognizing heretical dippings as being real Baptisms, not because of the method they are receiving people. St. Basil did not recognize the Arians as having real Baptisms.

I am only interested in discussing how the OCA receives people insofar as it relates to their understanding of those heretical dippings.

I would like you to acknowledge this is the basis for our discussion.

.

[George Australia]

George,
I am only interested in discussing how the OCA receives people insofar as it relates to their understanding of those heretical dippings.

Dear in Christ, OOD,
I fully agree with this, and the reason I am exploring it is because reception by Chrisimation surely aknowledges that the baptism revcieved was invalid.
Actions speak louder than words, so if the OCA Chrisimates those who received "heretical dippings", surely this is an official recognition that their baptism is invalid.
In Christ,
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

You are now asking me to assume that the OCA believes a certain way about Chrismation, which perhaps can be our next puzzle, to prove against the undeniable list of documents and people of the OCA which prove they have a corrupted understanding of Baptism.

Why should I afford you the benefit of no doubt with nothing to substantiate the assumption, when you do not afford me even a sliver of acknowledgement when documents created under the direction of OCA bishops prove my case?

I am beginning to think you will stop at nothing to provide a cover-up for these fallen men.

Perhaps if you can show me, or to apply your level of skepticism- prove to me in an official document that the OCA believes this or that about Chrismation and what it means, then you will have an case.

Until then, can we get back to the overwhelming pile of people, documents, and email correspondence that shows the OCA has a heretical view of baptism outside their group?

[George Australia]

George,
Perhaps if you can show me, or to apply your level of skepticism- prove to me in an official document that the OCA believes this or that about Chrismation and what it means, then you will have an case.

Dear in Christ OOD,

I found three statements on the official OCA website which clearly show that the OCA does not recognise baptism outside the Church and requires reception by Chrisimation or baptism for the non-Orthodox:
The Reception of Non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church: Contemporary Practice. St. Vladmir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol 41 (1997)

Catechumens, Depart!
Which deals specifically with the Lutheran question. Why can they not receive Communion if the OCA recognises their baptisms as valid?

This official publication article raises the question: "if you believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches, why haven't you become an Orthodox Christian?"
In Christ,
George