ROCOR Anathema Against ecumenism (1983)

Discussion about the various True Orthodox Churches around the world including current events. Subforums in other langauges, primarily English on the main forum.


Moderator: Mark Templet

Post Reply
User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Post by Jean-Serge »

George Australia wrote:
Jean-Serge wrote:

Well if you recognize the sacramet of Baptism, this means you recognize that the Catholics are baptized for their salvation ...

This is just another interpretation, just like the author of "Ecumenism-Path to Perdition's" interpretation on the "meaning" of the Balamand Statement. You cannot say: "I know that you beleive X because you said you believe Y...." You can only know that someone believes X if they say they beleive X.

IT IS NOT QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION. I am only reading the text that clearly says they recognize one another baptism. The question is not if they recognize this baptism make you orthodox, of course they do not... And the text of the anathema clearly says :

“and who do not distinguish the Priesthood and Mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and Eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation;”

In this case, this common agreement does so because they recognize heretics are baptized whereas the only baptism is the orthodox one...

Just put in parallel both texts : the 1983 anathema and the Covenant agreement... It is clear for anyone excepted if he is e jesuit of course :wink:

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

Jean-Serge wrote:

IT IS NOT QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION.

Yes it is, Jean Serge.
You are assuming that "recognising baptism" is the same as saying that that baptism is effectual for salvation. They are not the same thing.

If someone is baptised as a Lutheran, then I recognise that they are baptised as a Lutheran, according to the Lutheran rites. That's all....the fact that I don't add "which isn't effectual for salvation" is a matter of diplomacy and politeness rather than doctrinal error.
And don't tell me that there is no room for diplomacy and politeness in the task of evangelization, because St. Paul was an excellent diplomat as shown by his speach to the Athenians of the Areopagus, and Scripture tells us to "speak the truth in love." There is a time and place for everything, and the first introductiuon to someone is not the time to tell them that their baptism is ineffectual for salvation.

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Post by Jean-Serge »

George Australia wrote:
Jean-Serge wrote:

IT IS NOT QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION.

Yes it is, Jean Serge.
You are assuming that "recognising baptism" is the same as saying that that baptism is effectual for salvation. They are not the same thing.

If someone is baptised as a Lutheran, then I recognise that they are baptised as a Lutheran, according to the Lutheran rites.

It is not business of yours if he is baptized as Lutherian. Why should we put our nose in the Lutherian affairs as orthodox? It is very ridiculous. Lutherian asking orthodox to recognize their baptism is a Lutherian baptism... Of course it is!!! Your suggestion is so ridiculous that it proves that recognizing baptism clearly means recognanzing this is a mystery with grace... Otherwise why should they suggest implementing a common baptismal certificate?

I think you are really insecere in the worst case or very naive... and you refuse to see the truth

  • typicon in Antioch for concelebration with monophysites
  • recognizing the heretic's marriage in Alexandria
  • this Covenant agreement in Australia

I stop the discussion... at this point... In your behaviour, I can see ROCOR-L eagerness to join World orthodoxy... at expense of the faith... If you are ROCOR-L of course... This is very worrying... many people in Orthodoxy only follow the majority...

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

Jean-Serge wrote:

It is not business of yours if he is baptized as Lutherian. Why should we put our nose in the Lutherian affairs as orthodox?

Yes it is, since in Australia, if he wishes to be received into the Orthodox Church, he can be received by Chrisimation. In Australia, if you cannot prove that you were baptised with water in the Name of the Holy Trinity, you must be baptised to be received into the Orthodox Church.
For this reason, you will note that the agreement of the National Council of Churches which you quote has a footnote on page 9 (why is it you guys never read footnotes?). This footnote says:

While acknowledging the Certificate of Baptism (© 1988, Australian Consultation on Liturgy) is evidence of Christian Baptism, the Archdiocese uses a baptismal certificate that specifies that the Sacrament was performed “according to the rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church”.
Source: http://www.ncca.org.au/departments/fait ... venant.pdf

Why this distinction? Because the Orthodox Churches in Australia are maintaining the Canons of the Church, specifically, Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo, which I have already quoted, but which shows that it has always been the Holy Tradition of the Church that certain heretics need not be re-baptised to enter the Orthodox Church, but needed only to be Chrisimated or Profess the Faith.
Here is the Canon again:

Those who from the heretics come over to orthodoxy, and to the number of those who should be saved, we receive according to the following order and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, who call themselves Cathari, Aristeri, and Testareskaidecatitae, or Tetraditae, and Apollinarians, we receive on their presentation of certificates and on their anathematizing every heresy which does not hold as does the holy Apostolic Church of God: then first of all we anoint them with the holy chrism on their foreheads, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears; and as we seal them we say- "The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost."
But concerning the Paulianists it has been determined by the Catholic Church that they shall by all means be rebaptized. The Eunomeans also, who baptize with one immersion; and the Montanists, who here are called Phrygians; and the Sabellians, who consider the Son to be the same as the Father, and are guilty in certain other grave matters, and all the other heresies-for there are many heretics here, especially those who come from the region of the Galatians-all of their number who are desirous of coming to the Orthodox faith, we receive as Gentiles. And on the first day we make them Christians, on the second Catechumens, then on the third day we exorcise them, at the same time also breathing thrice upon their faces and cars; and thus we initiate them, and we make them spend time in church and hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.
And the Manichaeans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion.
Source: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/N ... 34_1507755

Jean-Serge wrote:

Your suggestion is so ridiculous that it proves that recognizing baptism clearly means recognanzing this is a mystery with grace...

LIke I said, that's your interpretation--- the facts as given above clearly disprove it.

Jean-Serge wrote:

Otherwise why should they suggest implementing a common baptismal certificate?

Don't you mean "a common baptisimal certificate which shows by which rites one is baptised"? I've already told you why.

Jean-Serge wrote:

I think you are really insecere in the worst case or very naive... and you refuse to see the truth

Thank you for passing judgement on me and slandering me.

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

We should avoid excess

Post by Jean-Serge »

George Australia wrote:

I consider it an honour to be falsey slandered, and persecuted, as are the heirarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which you seem to have schismed from.

Please do not fall into exageration!! You show no sign of being a defensor of the faith... You are not persecuted...

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Hilarion of Vienna's heretical views

Post by Jean-Serge »

I have foud the texte showing this MP Bishop, Hilarion of Viena falls under the 1983 Anathema :

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/59.aspx#2

The text is in French but I shall translate the quotation.

4. Ainsi, au niveau inter-chrétien le principe de territorialité canonique suppose une certaine solidarité entre les chrétiens des diverses confessions: il s’agit ici avant tout des Églises catholique et orthodoxe qui ont conservé la succession apostolique de la hiérarchie. Cette solidarité signifie que dans les pays où l’Église orthodoxe est majoritaire (comme la Russie, l’Ukraine, la Moldavie, la Grèce, la Roumanie, le Chypre etc.) l’Église catholique, en créant ses structures, doit au moins consulter l’Église orthodoxe locale et dans son activité missionnaire se satisfaire de ses fidèles traditionnels, sans faire du prosélytisme aux dépens de l’Église orthodoxe. Le même principe doit être sauvegardé dans les pays majoritairement catholique, comme l’Italie, l’Espagne, la France, le Portugal, l’Autriche, etc., où les Orthodoxes doivent s’abstenir de faire du prosélytisme et ne déployer l’activité missionnaire que dans le milieu de ses propres fidèles, en se référant dans toutes les questions controversée à l’Église catholique, en tant qu’Église de la majorité. Quant aux pays où ni les Orthodoxes ni les Catholiques ne sont majoritaires, des différentes communautés peuvent y mener librement l’activité missionnaire, sans craindre de violer le principe de la territorialité canonique. Cependant, même dans ces pays les Catholiques et les Orthodoxes devraient coordonner leurs actions afin d’éviter des malentendus et des conflits.

Here come my translation :

Thus at the inter-christian level, the principle of canonical territory suppose a solidarity between Christians of different churches : it concerns essentially the Catholic and Orthodox churches that have kept the apostolic succession in their hierarchy.

This solidarity means that in the countries where the Orthodox church has the majority of faithfuls, the Catholic church, when it creates its structures have to consult the orthodox church. In its missionary acticity, it must limit itself to its traditional faithful, without proselytizing the Orthodox faithful.

The same principle have to be respected in the countries where Catholicism is the majority faith like Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Austria… There, the Orthodox must refrain from proselytizing and must only have a missionary activity in their own environment. At last, in the countries where neither Orthodox nor Catholics are the majority, the different communities can freely deploy their missionary activities without such disrespecting the principle of canonical territoriality.

This Bishop clearly believes that Catholics hold apostolic succesion which is really wrong because apostolic succession is lost when a church falls in heresy.

After that, he clearly states that Orthodox should not make a mission in Ctaholics countries. What about Christ invitation to the Apostles to baptize everybody... I cannot understand how that bishop can pretend hold apostolical succession if he betrays the Apostles' heritage...

After that he clearly says that doing a mission in Catholic lands should violate the principle of canonical territory. So he thinks the Catholic church is the legitimate owner of this territory whereas it is a heretic church!!! Shame on him!!!

By the way he clearly ignore the Western reality where people are nominal catholics... Wheras the World orthodoxy is betraying and refusing to prozelytise, protestants really make a mission in "traditionnal" catholic lands like Portugal...

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

User avatar
Priest Siluan
Moderator
Posts: 1939
Joined: Wed 29 September 2004 7:53 pm
Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Argentina
Contact:

Re: Hilarion of Vienna's heretical views

Post by Priest Siluan »

Jean-Serge wrote:

Here come my translation :

Thus at the inter-christian level, the principle of canonical territory suppose a solidarity between Christians of different churches : it concerns essentially the Catholic and Orthodox churches that have kept the apostolic succession in their hierarchy.

This solidarity means that in the countries where the Orthodox church has the majority of faithfuls, the Catholic church, when it creates its structures have to consult the orthodox church. In its missionary acticity, it must limit itself to its traditional faithful, without proselytizing the Orthodox faithful.

The same principle have to be respected in the countries where Catholicism is the majority faith like Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Austria… There, the Orthodox must refrain from proselytizing and must only have a missionary activity in their own environment. At last, in the countries where neither Orthodox nor Catholics are the majority, the different communities can freely deploy their missionary activities without such disrespecting the principle of canonical territoriality.

This should be a possible answer to reason the "World Orthodoxy" is so inactive in the Latin American countries... the "Agreement" of Balamand is another similar factor. As we can see Ecumenism is origin of all the wrongs.

Post Reply