The question of Traditionalist Churches Baptizing heretics has been split off to here: http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... php?t=1559
The OCA
-
mwoerl
PROOF!!!!
every church has renegade or otherwise deficient priests. they do and say all sorts of things. now, if i were to say-ROAC has a name-worshipper priest, so ROAC must approve of the name-worshipping heresy, there would undoubtedly be a great uproar.
because orthodox churches are in communion with each other does not always mean that all of them equally approve of each others policies. when the mp approved communing roman catholics, i am sure that the state church of greece did not approve of communing roman catholics.
many churches are involved in different organizations, consultations, etc etc etc. just becauseone of these organizations produces some sort of document, it does not mean that document is 'an official document' or policy of such and such a church.
so-and i hope this isnt hard to comprehend, but, it seems to be very difficult for some to grasp-if a priest communes monophysites, that does not mean his church 'officially' approves communing monosphysites. if church 'a' does officially approve communing monophysites, and church 'b' is in communion with church 'a', it does not logically follow that church 'b', then, approves communing monophysites. if a church is in some organization, or participates in some 'forum,' or whatever, documents produced by that organization are not official documents of the participating church.
one could easily say that met valentin approves communing roman catholics because he was in the mp during the period in which they did that. we would be told, oh no, he repented of that! apoparently, so has the mp becuase that policy was stopped not too long after it began-yet we must comtinue to hear about it on and on, mustn't we? one could easily also find nutcase priests in each and every true or genuine orthodox church in existence today (or are we going to hear that every priest of every 'traditional' church has been perfect?); if we held up their actions as indicative of the entire church, no doubt a lot of vehement protests would result. yet-that is the same thing that is going on here! seemingly there is a much lower 'threshold' for the 'official' orthodox than there is for the 'traditional'-especially those regarded as 'extreme' or 'strict' by this forum.
it is so much easier if everything is crystal clear and black and white, but it is not. unfortunately that aint the case. it is so much easier to be intellectually lazy, and go with the flow and show how much we know and go on and on with the 'well this oca priest did this so the whole oca officially approves of it.' unfortunately, this is not 'reason' at all, but supposition and innuendo. another comparison-one could easily say that all greek old calendarists must approve of homsoexuality because of the boston monastery example-this is exactly the same type and quality of reasoning that has gone on here! 'i know the oca officially communes monophysites,' and my proof is a document fromthe patriarchate of antioch and the fact the a greek archdiocese priest in illinois does!' these type of statements are utterly ridiculous, and ridiculous in the extreme! now-someone tell me you wonder why it is that especially the 'strict' traditioanalists are often percieved as simply 'goofy,' or 'bizarre,' or 'weird.' because of their never ending proclivity to make statements such as the one above-'proving' the oca does communues monophysites by offering documents and examples that have nothing to do with the oca! if it was such a prevalent and obvious thing-wouldnt it be a bit easier to 'prove' it?
as long as traditionalists rely on faulty reasoning, on the 'because i said so' line of thought, hoping for black and white in the gray areas, continually resulting in outlandish and ridiculous statements-you are hurting your own cause, and hurting it very badly. those who rely on such lines of 'reasoning' scare more people away from your churches than you attract; you damage the traditionalist cause; you are your own worst enemies; you are more harmful to traditionalism than the worst new calendar/ecumenist/modernist 'demon' you could possibly imagine could ever be.
and, beleive me, shooting the messenger wont help! when people say 'show me proof, they mean PROOF, not your opinion, not the opinion of someone else that you heard once. PROOF. it is difficult to collect sometimes. and apparently, at least from the posts i have seen on this thread, not many are willing to surmount that difficulty. of course, it is much easier to repeat things like a parrot, and to endlessly repeat your very own and oh so admired and cherished opinions. see how far it gets you.
mwoerl
-
romiosini
romiosini wrote:To chrysostomos, you did well leaving and going to a new calendar church you know why? Is it better to judge all your life other christians and not care of your own soul? That is what sadly, traditionalists aren't many today.
So going to an Old Calendar church automatically means you spend ''all your life'' judging other Christians? 
I didn't catch Chrysostomos saying that he ever judged or saw others judge new calendarists while he went to the ROCOR monastery. If fact my impression was that he hasn't altered his views one bit since changing parishes and that he did not change because he found one parish any better or worst than the other, but for the sole fact that the New Calendar parish is closer to his residence.
I am not about to claim that Orthodox using the New Calendar are graceless or heretics, but I find the uncanonical introduction of it as a travesty that sewed (perhaps unreparable?) separation and also ruins the harmony of the litergical year. Therefore, I personally would never feel comfortable going to a new caledar parish. However, I would not judge those that do or even begin to imagine them not having Grace (that is for my bishops to do) as it is ultimatly not the calender that makes one Orthodox.
Nicholas (savva)
-
romiosini