Jerusalem Patriarchate - Oros of 1775

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

I have been away all day today and will be very busy tomorrow and gone again Friday. At lease by Saturday I plan to take a look at your links; I do pray they say what you contend.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

I finally had the chance to look through the links. Being that the OCA has a Latin philo/theology on Baptism, and that they, the Latins, could say all the same things as in your links, how does this prove anything?

Yet we still have the "Joint Theological Decree" on baptism. I ask, how does a heresy such as this get formulated, written, talked about, signed, published, and circulated under the auspices of OCA bishops? Are they incompetent?

And why haveb't they issued a statement against it saying it was a "mistake" or an error?

In short, exactly why shouldn't I beleive this is the faith of the OCA when they practice exactly as if this is what they indeed believe?

[CGW]

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.

Well, part of what is going on here is that one of the differences between Eastern and Western praxis is being (for want of a better word) exploited. The Western view is that Eastern chrismation corresponds to Western confirmation. Whether or not this is so, it has also been the case that confirmation has been the Western apostolic rite for joining a new church (with a long list of hedges which I don't want to go into). Hence, chrismation paradoxically both affirms and denies the prior baptism.

[George Australia]

George,
Being that the OCA has a Latin philo/theology on Baptism, and that they, the Latins, could say all the same things as in your links

Dear Servant of God,
The Latins cannot say the same things that the OCA says. According to the latin "New Code of Canon Law", the latins recognise Orthodox Baptism, Chrisimation and Eucharist as valid (Canon 565). The reverse is not true if the Orthodox (including the OCA) Chrisimate roman catholic converts.

Yet we still have the "Joint Theological Decree" on baptism.

Yet even this Joint Statement (not really a decree) recognises that the Orthodox retain the right to Chrisimate latin converts- Again, there is a distinct difference between how Orthodoxy views latin baptism and vice versa.

In short, exactly why shouldn't I beleive this is the faith of the OCA when they practice exactly as if this is what they indeed believe?

In short, you shouldn't believe it because it is not true, clearly the OCA praxis of Chrisimating latin converts shows that latin baptism is not valid to them.

In Christ,
George

[Daniel]

In short, exactly why shouldn't I beleive this is the faith of the OCA when they practice exactly as if this is what they indeed believe?

In short, you shouldn't believe it because it is not true, clearly the OCA praxis of Chrisimating latin converts shows that latin baptism is not valid to them.

In Christ,
George

George,
That would be true only if they didn't refuse to baptise Latins. But they do refuse to baptize Latins, Lutherns, Baptists (who only use one immersion), and the rest of the heterodox groups they feel that it is not necessary to baptize.

[romiosini]

Lord Have Mercy!

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

There is nothing more important for a bishop to guide the flock in truth and in the spirit of Orthodoxy toward salvation.

The commision responsible for the "Joint Statement" was under the leadership and guidance of OCA bishops, so in effect, you are saying that the OCA bishops failed in their primary duty to guide the flock by allowing this statement to be issued. Furthermore, you are saying they are unconcerned with this heresy published under their supervision since they have failed to act against it. And if that were not enough, they have greatly deluded the Latins by reinforcing them in their heresies while speaking to the world with untruths. And if that were still not enough, you are saying the priests and underlings who created this document where at the very least misguided renegades who are completley unfit to be discussing the faith with non-Orthodox (as if they are orthodox themselves).

The defenders of the neo-orthodox psuedo-church always demand to see it in black and white, but when faced with such instances, they turn to hearsay and speculation. How sad.