New calendar Greek baptism

[Kollyvas]

More often than not the one who talks about judgement is guilty of it himself, no matter what platitudes, sophistries, and pharisee baiting he/she engages in. Whereas, "conservative" or "liberal" Orthodox...well, AS ONE PRAYS SO ONE BELIEVES. I reiterate my question which reflects that which WAS RECEIVED BY THE HOLY APOSTLES AND FATHERS THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT:

How does one become reborn in Christ and become a part of the Body with all the salvific consequences thereof OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH?! Heretical baptism is nothing, not even when it has a proper form. Whereas, Orthodox Baptism saves, even when the rite is improper or the baptized doesn't take it seriously.

R

[Jean-Serge]

Latin theology. The priest does not perform a mystery, it is the Holy Spirit who does this!!! The "in persona christi" is Latin Theology...

I don't know anything about Latin theology. So relax, okay.
Joanna

You know nothing about Latin theology but you use Latin concepts. Really you are influenced by it like many Orthodox. It is time to get rid off this Babylon captivity and read George Florovsky (Paths of Russian theology)

[Jean-Serge]

I invite everyone to rean the letter Metropolitan Anthony sent to Gardiner an Anglican, about the ways of receiving heterodox. He clearly states that heterodox baptism is nothing but that peple may be received through chrismation only or by baptism and this has a pedagogical interest.

When Uniatism was a threat, Uniat were baptized to show clearly that they came from heresy. When Uniatism was fought back victoriously, they were received through chrismation because the danger had withdrawn.

Also read the canons of Nicea indicating the multiple way of recieving heretics... And it was not due to their numer because mass baptism would have been possible in rivers...

According to the story Nikodemus tells about this former Catholic, it only proves we are in Latin theology... characterized by extreme legalism and misunderstanding of the true nature of mysteries.

[Kollyvas]

I'm going to say something now. bl. +Met. Antony's patristic stance is problematic at best and was a reflection of a larger European trend which began with the Tractarians and the Oxford Movement. However, you will find in his writings and thought that at times when the Church is set upon it is MORE APPROPRIATE TO OBSERVE AKRIVEIA, for oikonomia would serve to weaken the Canons and/or Orthodox doctrine and ecclesiology. In a day when ecumenists pimp their "baptismal theologies" and call St.Nikodemos an 'innovator', akriveia can only be the response. So we return to the question, perhaps you don't believe that Baptism means rebirth in Christ and becoming a member of His Body, but St. Paul sure does:

HOW DOES ONE ENTER THE BODY THE CHRIST BY BEING BAPTIZED OUTSIDE OF IT?!

Moreover, most of the sects whose "baptisms" you would have us accept have either a muddled or utterly heretical notion of human anthropology and salvation, mystagogy, etc.---how in the world can someone coming from one of these sects including the latins have a proper Baptism when they themselves would argue that THEIR BAPTISM meant something OTHER than what the Holy Spirit had revealed to the Church? You mention uniate Baptisms and that is taken up in an earlier post, where groups of arians and semi-arians were received into Orthodoxy, canons were relaxed but only WHEN large groups declared that the Orthodox position was correct. Again, to inform yourself you should read the book BY THE CANON LAWYER from the University of Athens--an institution highly influenced by Fr. Florovsky--and READ I CONFESS ONE BAPTISM.
R

[Nikodemus]

Jean Serge

You defend an open misuse of the mysteries of the Holy Orthodox Church. You argue that economia should be akrebeia, thinking that confirmation is enough to receive converts from heresies into the church and you do this in open opposition to the the holy fahters teching on how to use akrebeia and economia.

[Jean-Serge]

Nikodemus,

You should read twice. I do not prefer economy to acriby! I say economy is possible and that the one one received with economy is entirely orthodox...

[Edward]

The Greek word "Baptismo" means, "to put under the water", which implies full immersion. In this case, there was little excuse for pouring water on this man. Second, any kind of reception into the Church is totally inappropriate because it is only to get married.

As for pouring, the Didache does allow for it in extreme circumstances. I know that the Priest at my Church once baptised a man by pouring because he was in a hospital bed and could not be moved but wanted to be baptised into the Orthodox Church before he died. So they poured water on him. I think this is the sort of case that the Didache implies. The man reposed shortly afterwards.

We must not get to legalistic too. Because the Didache firsts instructs baptisms to be conducted in a river, lake, or ocean. I was baptised (and correctly so) in a horse trough.

The "baptism" you saw at the GOArch parish must have been scandalous and is certainly not the standard. It only affirms for me that the Greek Archdiocese is more of an organization dedicated to the promotion of Hellenism than the Gospel. They will encourage this man to go to Greek School but never any catechesis!

Oh! How different Orthodoxy in America might have been had the US Government been smart enough NOT to let the Greeks in!

Edward