Jerusalem Patriarchate - Oros of 1775

[George Australia]

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.

Dear Servant of God,
I have said on previous threads that the Balamand Agreement was a stupid and heretical statement. It was also one of the main reasons I left the GOA. But I don't think this is the issue here. The issue at hand is: you are saying the OCA recognises non-Orthodox baptisms as valid; I am saying they do not.

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).

I can only repeat that the Balamand Agreement was a stupid and heretical statement. But I don't think this is the issue here. The issue at hand is: you are saying the OCA recognises non-Orthodox baptism as valid; I am saying they do not.

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.

If you are suggesting I am guilty of "turning to hearsay and speculation" could you please point out where I have done this, and present your evidence (which I have been asking for for over a week now) to show that your belief that the OCA recognises baptisms outside the Church as valid is not based on hearsay and speculation?
In Christ,
George

[George Australia]

No offense to anyone....

Dear in Christ Romiosini,
Thank you for this post, and certainly no offense is taken. As I also said earlier in this thread, you also use the example of the Arians being received through Chrisimation though they deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and therefore even their form is invalid. I think it is a little different in the case of those who apostasize and return, because they have a valid baptism. The fact remains that baptism outside the Orthodox Church is invalid, and the OCA recognises this.
In Christ,
George

[romiosini]

Lord Have Mercy!

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

romiosini,

I beleive you are misunderstanding the point, and so is George.

George: It is not Balamand I am referring to, it is the OCA's joint theological statement.

romiosini: It is not that they receive by Chrismation, we do the same. It is that the OCA recognizes REAL baptisms by heretics.

And with that, I believe I am done.

[George Australia]

I beleive you are misunderstanding the point, and so is George.
George: It is not Balamand I am referring to, it is the OCA's joint theological statement.

Dear in Christ OOD,
How wrong can a man be! Please forgive me. I see your point now after reading in the correct statement:

"We are therefore moved to declare that we also recognize each other's baptism as one and the same."

You are absolutley right. Further, I think this statement is is not only heresy, it is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to say that any baptism outside the Church is "one and the same" as Orthodox Baptism. Why bother baptizing our Children as Orthodox if this is the case? If those calling themselves Orthodox do not reject this statement, then this statement will become true since Grace will depart from their baptisms, as it has from the latins, if they dare adopt it as their official position.
Please accept my apologies and forgive my misunderstanding you.
In Christ,
George