Obtinacy in error is never a virtue, and when the language surrounding it is imprecise and even pointed, then steps must needs be taken. My "cudgel" is one of love--one could only point those who would reprove to the Fathers they do so hallow, say St. Basil. I have documented and alluded to authorities which more than cement my position and I have also critiqued that of my interlocutor, who seems to think that Baptism can at times be even redundant. Vigorously doing so provides HEALTHY dialogue and expunges error. I have accepted the possibility of oikonomia as UNDER THE PROVINCE OF THE BISHOP's POWER "TO BIND AND LOOSE." Let me AGAIN repeat what I have said. (If you don't bother READING content, please don't bother criticizing, for it ends up I repeat myself and either your're not/can't listen to the answer--Yes, the Holy Fathers taught us to respect one another and actually EXAMINE a position before we began attacking others.):
...That means PRECISELY that the rites in toto comprise initiation into the Church, and that, yes, by oikonomia dictated by the Bishops "shortcuts" may be taken and mystagogically the effect be the same; however, if a Bishop wills as in the CASE OF LAY BAPTISM, the rite may be completed so that the initiation be FULL AND PROPER in accordance with the rite set down by the HOLY CHURCH IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. The rite of initiation is precisely COMPLETED so that the rebirth in the Body be full and proper. In other words, akriveia in the rite be observed versus oikonomia. AKRIVEIA IS ALWAYS AN OPTION AND ALWAYS PREFERED AND ONLY "ridiculous" TO THOSE NOT FULLY ORTHODOX. ...
...AND THE QUESTION REMAINS TO YOU: lay Baptism being acceptible and some Catacomb Baptisms as well which involved a spoonful of water, is it proper, prudent and better that the rites be observed in strictness and complete?! By your reasoning which does reek of renovationists and ecumenists, it would be totally unnecessary. By extension then, ordinations, matrimony, all Mysteries observed in irregular and incomplete ways have validity. The question that is begged: what standard of ORTHOPRAXIA then is legitimate if any and all abberation be legitimate?! Why Orthodoxy?! Moreover, your implication that completion of the Rite of Baptism is somehow an inane redundancy throws into question your understanding of as well as appraisal of Orthodox Baptism as lacking a basic understanding of human anthropology viz. the God-man. It is patently offensive--Orthodox Baptism can never be superfluous. ...
...If Baptism means rebirth in Christ Jesus and entrance into His Body, the Church, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN IT TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE OF IT OR HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE SIDESTEPPED?!...
And as to the "Tradition of the Church"--Fr. Metallinos goes into the tension between AKRIVEIA vs OIKONOMIA, where the HOLY CANONS REFLECT OIKONOMIA, resting his point on AKRIVEIA on the above supposition of initiation into the Church. Moreover, as is alluded to, Fr. Metallinos underscores THAT OIKONOMIA CAN NEVER BE A POSSIBILITY when it would entertain the denaturing or abolition of AKRIVEIA, and that AKRIVEIA is always preferred by the Church. He is a canonist from the State Church of Greece with a doctoral degree from the University of Athens--his credentials are impeccable and his understanding is documented as a paraphrase of the Holy Fathers and the PEDALION this fellow keeps alluding to with Patristic support for his stance. In world Orthodoxy today, the presupposition that any illumined Father or Patristic Consensus can be overturned by individual "reasonings" has only produced babel--here there is a set teaching which has been blessed by the Holy Spirit: one shared by the N African, Cappadocian churches and the Kollyvades Fathers and the Holy Mountain. It survives 'til this day and is a sine qua non of Orthodoxy more sovereign than a position which coddles the heterodox, THE PRODUCT OF THE WESTERN CAPTIVITY they so disdain.
R
