Appeal of the First Heirarch of the ROAC to ROCOR(L)

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
CGW
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue 18 November 2003 4:30 pm

Still Sinning After All These Years

Post by CGW »

seraphim reeves wrote:

If we can take it upon ourselves to pervert the original intent of Apostles, why not deem all sayings on this subject...thus, hosing down someone with an aerosal can of bug spray can also be a "baptism", solely because we choose to call it such?

Well, I at least tend to think that spraying someone with a poison is somehow symbolically defective, but then as a DP, what do I know?

The thing is, none of this is really about baptism anyway. It's really about disparaging others. It about saying "everyone is broken but my group." Since everyone else thinks that your group is also broken, wouldn't an objective conclusion be that we are all still sinning away and that searching for a perfect, sinless group is essentially an act of self-rightesouness?

User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

CGW,

The thing is, none of this is really about baptism anyway. It's really about disparaging others. It about saying "everyone is broken but my group." Since everyone else thinks that your group is also broken, wouldn't an objective conclusion be that we are all still sinning away and that searching for a perfect, sinless group is essentially an act of self-rightesouness?

All of this may be true...but in the end, it is irrelevent to the discussion. Baptizo means immersion, and without doubt this is what the early Church did to neophytes in the rivers, baptiseries, etc. chosen to assist in the re-birth of sinners. That is just how it is; the discussion now is at the stage where I find myself pointing to the obvious. There is little much else to say (or at least that I can say) beyond this. What you more or less seem to be saying is "I don't care what 'baptism' means, or how it was universally practiced in ancient Christendom ." In which case, there is little else to be said on this topic.

Seraphim

User avatar
CGW
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue 18 November 2003 4:30 pm

"Traditional" Baptism

Post by CGW »

seraphim reeves wrote:

The thing is, none of this is really about baptism anyway. It's really about disparaging others. It about saying "everyone is broken but my group." Since everyone else thinks that your group is also broken, wouldn't an objective conclusion be that we are all still sinning away and that searching for a perfect, sinless group is essentially an act of self-rightesouness?

All of this may be true...but in the end, it is irrelevent to the discussion.

Well, I don't think it is. After all, one could, being a layman, simply defer to one's bishops and not argue about this.

Baptizo means immersion, and without doubt this is what the early Church did to neophytes in the rivers, baptiseries, etc. chosen to assist in the re-birth of sinners.

Why shouldn't I doubt? If "baptizo" simply meant "immersion" then why doesn't the Vulgate translate it so? Surely the Vulgate understands the word to signify not just any immersion, but a specific sacramental act.

The "obvious" is that etymology doesn't work as you would have it. And the question continues to be begged as to why changes in the detail of the form are all that important. The canons would appear to say that pouring is undesirable but the do not say that it is invalid. Even to this DP it seems to me that you are misrepresenting the tradition to the advantage of the jurisdiction of which you are not yet a member, and to the denegration of that which you are leaving.

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

CGW,

Holy Tradition has always taught that we are baptized through immersion. This is seen in the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, which speaks of immersion; in the second homily concerning the performance of mysteries by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, it clearly states: "Ye have confessed the salvific confession, and having immersed yourselves thrice in water, came forth out of it," and in the words of St. Basil the Great: "Through three immersions and the same number of invocations is the great mystery of Baptism performed."

The immersion into water, and specifically a triple immersion, and also a triple coming out of the water was not instituted arbitrarily or accidentally, but as the image of the Resurrection of Christ on the third day. "The water," says blessed Basil, "has the symbolic meaning of death, and accepts the body as into a coffin." How then, do we liken ourselves to the One Who descended into Hades, imitating His burial through baptism? The bodies of those who are baptized in water are buried, in a certain sense. Consequently, baptism mystically represents the laying aside of bodily cares, by the word of the apostle: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2: 11)." St. Cyril, in his commentary on the above words, says: "Thus, with the help of these signs you have represented the three-day burial of Christ because, as our Savior was in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, so in the first coming up from the water you symbolized the first day of His sojourn under the earth, and through your immersion, you symbolized the night. For, as one who walks in the night sees nothing, and he who walks during the day does so in light, so you, having immersed yourself in water saw nothing, as if you saw nothing in the night, and having come forth from the water, you see everything as in daylight. You were both dead and then born. So the salvific water was for you both a coffin and a mother. Although we neither actually die, nor get buried, nor are we nailed to the cross, but only simulate this symbolically, we, however, do indeed achieve salvation. Christ was truly crucified, truly buried, and truly resurrected. He granted all this to us, so that we, in imitating His passions, would become partakers of them and indeed would achieve salvation."

You said:

If "baptizo" simply meant "immersion" then why doesn't the Vulgate translate it so?

So, to simply try and understand the logic (and not that I think you will ever be convinced of anything) I would like to ask, do you believe the different translations of Holy Scripture necessitate us to rethink Holy Tradition?

User avatar
CGW
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue 18 November 2003 4:30 pm

Post by CGW »

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:

You said:

If "baptizo" simply meant "immersion" then why doesn't the Vulgate translate it so?

So, to simply try and understand the logic (and not that I think you will ever be convinced of anything) I would like to ask, do you believe the different translations of Holy Scripture necessitate us to rethink Holy Tradition?

Ah, but the point is, the Vulgate is Tradition. It is a testimony to the mind of the Fathers just as any other of their writings is a testimony. And what it testifies to is that, by the time of Jerome, "baptism" had moved beyond meaning simply the general act of immersion and had acquired the specific meaning of this sacrament.

And it is easy enough to go back and find lots of writers talking about the symbol in its perfected form. Even modern writers in heterodox churches use the same language. But that's only one part of the tradition. There is another part which prefers this more perfect symbol but which is willing to, through charity (or some might say, economy) to accept a less perfect form of the act.

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

That answers my question CGW, thank you.

User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

Keble,

Ah, but the point is, the Vulgate is Tradition. It is a testimony to the mind of the Fathers just as any other of their writings is a testimony. And what it testifies to is that, by the time of Jerome, "baptism" had moved beyond meaning simply the general act of immersion and had acquired the specific meaning of this sacrament.

I cannot fathom the "reasoning" you're using here.

Yes, the word "baptizo" (Greek) was directly imported (as many words are) into various tongues spoken by Christians, because the word itself has a lot of "content" attached to it. Thus when I, an English speaking person, say "baptize" it is clear I am talking about something more than just immersion (which can occure in other, non-sacramental contexts... such as simply taking a bath or going for a swim.)

However, I do not see how this weighs in against the fact that the etymology of this word, the reason it was chosen to describe this evangelical Mystery in the first (and most important) sacred writings of the Church (the Greek New Testament), points to precisely how said rite is supposed to be performed - immersion. I would also submit that the importing of this term into St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate included not simply the invisible significance which the Church attaches to "baptism", but also it's form - unless you seriously believe St.Jerome himself, or his contemporaries, considered anything but immersion to be the normative, Apostolic manner of birthing sinners into the grace of the New Covenant.

Seraphim

Post Reply