New calendar Greek baptism

Jean-Serge · Post by **Jean-Serge** » Thu 20 October 2005 5:04 am

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

Edward

$\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ Your words are entirely offensive!!! $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ shame on you $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$ $\/$

Nikodemus · Post by **Nikodemus** » Thu 20 October 2005 6:49 am

Excellent excerpt from another post

Saint Cyprian completely refuses the name "Christian" to all those who stand outside the Church, as if repeating the decisive exclamation of his teacher Tertullian: "haeretici christiani esse non possunt!" - heretics cannot be Christians!

Thus we can understand Saint Cyprian's demand that even Novatians, who were only schismatics, should be re-baptized when being received into the Church. For Saint Cyprian, the baptism of schismatics upon being received into the Church was not re-baptism at all, but precisely baptism. "We maintain," he wrote to Quintus, "that we do not rebaptize those who come from there, but we baptize; for they have received nothing there where there is nothing." He adds that baptism outside the Church is only "an empty and impure immersion." "There, people are not washed, but are only profaned more; sins are not cleansed, but are only redoubled. Such a birth promotes children to the devil and not to God."

Saint Cyprian's conviction about the invalidity of any baptism outside the Church, and about the necessity of once again baptizing converts to the Church, was confirmed by a local council of the Church which met at Carthage in 256 A.D. with Cyprian himself presiding. In his closing address, summing up the council's decisions, the Saint says: "Heretics must be baptized by a baptism solely of the Church so that they can change from enemies to friends and from antichrists to Christians."

The above-stated views of Saint Cyprian which, evidently, the entire Carthagenian Council shared, clearly and profoundly witness how totally fused the Church was with Christianity and vice versa, in the third century.

Nikodemus · Post by **Nikodemus** » Thu 20 October 2005 6:55 am

Edward

First you accuse the greeks of phyletism and then you yourself (who belon to the Russian church) som implicitly that it would have been better if only the slavs were represants of orthodox in America. I wonder if you yourself have become victim of phylitism by these words.

I would say that it is One Church, but different nationalities. One baptism, but different tounges, One faith but many jurisdictions.

ioannis · Post by **ioannis** » Thu 20 October 2005 8:36 am

Saint Cyprian's conviction about the invalidity of any baptism outside the Church, and about the necessity of once again baptizing converts to the Church, was confirmed by a local council of the Church which met at Carthage in 256 A.D. with Cyprian himself presiding.

btw - This local council was accepted and confirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (I am fairly sure it was the sixth despite the time gap).

Jean-Serge · Post by **Jean-Serge** » Thu 20 October 2005 9:04 am

We have entirley departed from the orIginal question that was : "Is baptism by immersion the only true baptism"...

M y answer remains the same : if their is no infrastructure to make it by immersion then do it by another way and it is OK...

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Thu 20 October 2005 9:18 am

Update....

I spoke with my girlfriend last night and she told me an amazing thing. I asked her how her fiance felt about Christ and she said that he does accept Him in his heart! But, he was disappointed that he wasn't immersed. He said he wanted to do it the "Old Testament" way.

Would it be acceptable if he did it again but with triple immersion? It would be at my ROCOR church. He lives close to my church and after the marriage she will move in with him, so maybe they can go there.

Plus, I told her that non-Orthodox cannot participate in the marriage ceromony. She totally agreed and is going to talk to him. I thought her sister would be the koumbara but it was going to be his sister! I told her that this is not acceptable.

Hopefully, things will work out correctly. I'm definitely praying hard for them.

I still think triple immersion is the correct way. Nowadays, if we can get something done right, it will be a consolation at our judgement, no?
Otherwise, God will judge us for laxness when we know we could have done it right and didn't. And I would be judged for knowing better but not saying anything. I have done my part, now it's up them.

Joanna

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Thu 20 October 2005 9:24 am

Jean-Serge,

M y answer remains the same : if their is no infrastructure to make it by immersion then do it by another way and it is OK...

In this case, there is no reason why the priest SHOULDN'T have the proper font. We live in the city, there are all kinds of means to get one. If the fiance is willing, I will bring him to my church and it can be done properly, no problemo. My church will be the means.

Joanna