[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157842#msg157842 date=1342688897] This 7th canon is a forgery and is not accepted by the Church. Only six out of the seven canons are accepted. Source please?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13480.msg157843#msg157843 date=1342690735] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157842#msg157842 date=1342688897] This 7th canon is a forgery and is not accepted by the Church. Only six out of the seven canons are accepted. Source please?
It is historically known that the 7th canon is an extract from a letter from Constantinople to the Chalcedonian Patriarch Marterious of Antioch in the year 470 (almost hundred years after the Council of Constantinople).
It is impossible to deny that those who did not hold Trinitarian heresies were never baptised. They were received as being already baptised.
If you insist on rejecting this statement then I will make it again and manifestly support it with references in the paper I am researching at the moment.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157853#msg157853 date=1342705177] It is impossible to deny that those who did not hold Trinitarian heresies were never baptised. They were received as being already baptised.
If you insist on rejecting this statement then I will make it again and manifestly support it with references in the paper I am researching at the moment.
Are you saying that the baptism of Aryans was accepted?
All heretics who were initially baptized by heretics have to be baptized in the Orthodox Church, just as we do with the Moslems, Jehovah witnesses, Aryans, Catholics, Protestants, .....
Those heretics were never baptized to begin with so we cannot say that they are (were) re baptized.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157855#msg157855 date=1342706744] I am not going to argue with you.
I will finish my paper and allow it to argue for me.
I will say that I believe you to be in error.
Please, do not reduce this to just a debate. This is of utmost importance to how we view the faith and Tradition received in the Church.
I am not here to win arguments, but to sincerely explain, as much as God's grace allows, the genuine faith we have received.
Which of what I said is error? You really believe that Aryans were accepted with no baptism? You believe that the so called "7th canon of Constantinople" is in fact one that belong to the Council of 381?
If you just answer these three questions, then I think we set the tone for any further discussion.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157860#msg157860 date=1342707870] Your main argument, and these other points are side matters, is that the Eastern Orthodox do not have the Orthodox Faith and should be baptised.
This is the main issue I will be addressing, in the context of the ancient and Traditional practice of the Orthodox Church through the ages.
I am sorry that you have misunderstood me regarding the rebaptism of the EO.
Just to clarify: The EO and the OO do have different faiths as I explained in my previous posts.
Following, should they be baptized in the OO? Yes. Is this done today? No. Why? Leniency. What is the practice? Confirmation only for the EO are considered apostates and that is how the Church treated the apostates throughout history.
Just to clarify: The EO and the OO do have different faiths as I explained in my previous posts.
I still don't understand how the fait is different. As I stated in Post 86 above, "since we both condemn the heresies of Nestorianism, Eutechianism/Monophysitism, Appolinarianism, and I think we also reject Monotheletism in its strictist form (correct me if I'm wrong), then how can our faith be different Christologically? It is the same.
If you ask the EO if they believe that Christ is fully God, lacking nothing in His Divinity and Fully Man, lacking nothing in His Humanity, and that He is the self-same Logos of the Father Incarnate, fully constubstantial with the Father and fully constubstantial with us, having two essences united in the One Hypoststasis of the Logos Incarnate. They and us agree.
Our holy Fathers in all of the Oriental Orthodox Synods have stated that the EO and OO have the same faith. I have EO in my own congregation who are very devout and faithful and have the same faith. This is why EO have always been received simply by rejecting error and confessing the faith until the confusion of recent times.
I am writing a paper that will clearly show and demonstrate this with detailed references.
The faith is different because the EO rejected our agreement. We initially agreed on their interpretation of the two natures and were ready for a full communion. However, EO backed out rejecting again our faith.
You are wrong. And on such an important matter I cannot allow you to state something that is so wrong.
I have studied these matters for the last 18 years, and I have participated in a variety of ecumenical and private dialogues.
The identity of faith has NOTHING to do with whether or not any particular person accepts another. This is illogical as I have shown. And in any case it is not true. Every EO bishop I have spoken to has stated that they consider the OO Orthodox and would commune OO.
You are entitled to your opinion but it is not true.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157886#msg157886 date=1342730796] You are wrong. And on such an important matter I cannot allow you to state something that is so wrong.
I have studied these matters for the last 18 years, and I have participated in a variety of ecumenical and private dialogues.
The identity of faith has NOTHING to do with whether or not any particular person accepts another. This is illogical as I have shown. And in any case it is not true. Every EO bishop I have spoken to has stated that they consider the OO Orthodox and would commune OO.
You are entitled to your opinion but it is not true.
This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the Coptic Church. Unfortunately, you keep misrepresenting it.
If one rejects my faith, it means he holds a different faith no matter how long I say he has the same faith.
By rejecting to agree, the EO is basically saying we have a different faith.
Following, the two families have different faiths.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157890#msg157890 date=1342731363] Well you can have the last word then. I am not sure what to say to object to your view without becoming heated. So I wish you well.
I am not here to have the last word. However, The truth must be told.
The burden is on you to prove that the current practice of chrismating the EO members is wrong.
I thought we have agreed that you will do you research and present Traditional and historical study as to why we should accept the EO as they are.
God's peace to all. The sacrement of our baptism is specific to what we believe, so wouldn't someone who believes they were a former heretic, want to put away the former heresies by the sacrament of the church they found their truth in? I think we would have to consider the sacrament of the former church and to consider if the sacraments were in agreement. Then I guess, if they are similar then chrisimation would of being the answer. I don't know. I pray for the solution. Respect is needed in our disagreement however, and the way we say something is in a way that is not to make the other feel defensive, but that are both are on the same side seeking a solution.
I hope the confusion is only due to misunderstanding and not uncertainty about basic teaching.. heretics don't get rebaptized if they had originally been baptized on the Coptic orthodox faith, but if they had been baptized on the heretic faith, then that's not accepted... thought some may have struggled with this point, although my impression could be wrong Oujai
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157883#msg157883 date=1342730257] The faith is different because the EO rejected our agreement. We initially agreed on their interpretation of the two natures and were ready for a full communion. However, EO backed out rejecting again our faith.
This is why we have different faiths.
Perhaps they rejected our insistance on Cyrillian Terminology, not so much the faith. From what I see, the faith is the same, despite terminological differences.
When we as OO examine their (EO) faith, we see it as the same faith, even if some of them (the EO) don't agree.
The fact that both the EO and OO reject Nestoriansm, Eutechiansim, and Apolinarianism, Arianism, and also Monotheletism by proxy means that we have the same Christological faith, despite the different expressions.
I don't think the different expressions amount to a different faith.
They say Dyophysitism and we say Miaphysitism. They and us mean Two Essences in the One Hypostasis.
If their insistance on teh Dyophysie expression and our insistance onthe Miaphysite expression is the only difference, this does not amount to a difference of faith. If it does, I don't see how.
While your experiences with the EO may be positive, sadly it is not always the case. Archbishop Stylianos, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Australia, firmly upholds that we are 'heretics' to this day. When HH Pope Shenouda visited Australia, Archbishop Stylianos openly warned all Greek Orthodox clergy and laity, that he would excommunicate them if they met with HH. Bishop Suriel has attempted many times to have dialogue with Archbishop Stylianos, each time having the door slammed in his face. A priest in our diocese was studying at the Greek Orthodox theological college in Sydney. Archbishop Stylianos was teaching one of the classes, and openly ridiculed our priest in front of the whole class for being a 'heretic'. I visited St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and was refused entrance to see the body of St Catherine because I was not 'orthodox'. I've also visited the Holy city of Jerusalem. The Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem treats all the Oriental Orthodox churches as heretics. Fights regularly break out between the EO Greeks and the OO Armenians because they view us as heretics. In the church where the Virgin St Mary's tomb remains, the EO pray at different times to the OO because they do not want to pray with 'heretics'. I can go on. Unfortunately, there are a lot of EO clergy and laity who still believe us to be heretics. I pray that one day the schisms of the church may cease. But as far as i'm concerned, we are still a long way off.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=13480.msg157906#msg157906 date=1342760394] heretics don't get rebaptized if they had originally been baptized on the Coptic orthodox faith, but if they had been baptized on the heretic faith, then that's not accepted...
I'm not so sure this accurate. There are many facets of your claim. The ancient fathers are fairly unanimous in this accept. Heretics who were baptized by heretic clergy have a valid baptism if they were baptized in the name of the Trinity as Jesus Christ claimed in Matthew 28:19. I gave a list of heretics were required to be rebaptized and those who were not. The reason why some heretics were rebaptized is because the heresy denied the Trinity. If the heresy did not deny the Trinity, then they were not required to be baptized. These include Arians, Nestorians, Apollanarists, etc. We cannot make the claim that all who were baptized on the heretic faith are not accepted. Pope Peter I of Alexandria made a point to reaccept ex-Arians, while the Meletian sect refused (as did the cathari and others). Pope Peter and many Trinitarian fathers stated there must be a period of repentance. The councils of Nicaea and other councils reaffirm this.
Secondly, if one says a repentant heretic must be rebaptized because the clergy performing the baptism is a heretic, we reduce baptism to a work of merit, not a gift of salvation. It is unanimous, my salvation cannot be voided if my priest is a sinner or a heretic. My salvation cannot be contingent on another person. It is a gift of grace and I must accept it. There are no additional conditions.
Third, if one says a repentant heretic must be rebaptized because the person was baptized into heresy, then we also reduce the efficacy of baptism and salvation. Salvation is for the sick and needy. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." Matthew 9:12. Rebaptizing a heretic states his first baptism is useless and unefficacous. That is not to say that all original baptisms are efficacous. If the catechumen, the officiating priest and the religious denominatin faith see baptism as nothing more than ceremonious (as many Protestant religions do), then there was never an effective baptism that gave remission of sins, salvation and eternal life. Rebaptism is a misnomer. It should be called real baptism to distinguish from all previous fake baptisms. Real baptisms are sought out by those who own sickness and know they are sick. Ceremonious fake baptisms are for those who consider themselves healthy.
The onus to claim rebaptism is required for everyone outside the Coptic Church requires substantial proof against all ancient and current fathers and Orthodox belief systems.
Daniel, I am afraid that this is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we have the same faith. My own bishop will be meeting the Ecumenical Patriarch soon, as he regularly does, and he could not be more welcoming. Likewise the Russian bishop in Australia could not be more positive.
The response of one or many EO says absolutely nothing about our mutual faith. It only shows that some do not properly understand what we believe.
Heretics who were baptized by heretic clergy have a valid baptism if they were baptized in the name of the Trinity as Jesus Christ claimed in Matthew 28:19.
This is absolutely not correct and utter nonesense.
If this is true, then we elevate the rite over faith. If we accept this logic, then faith is not important and we should accept the sacraments of all heretics, so long they perform the rituals.
This also means that any laity can perform the sacraments so long he/she performs the correct rituals. This is nonesense.
Faith is performed through the rituals not the other way around. Baptism is performed on the right faith in the Holy Trinity. How could a heretic, whose belief in the Trinity is distorted, baptize someone in the correct faith? How would an Arian who does not believe in the diety of the Son baptize one in His name?
Why then we require apostolic succession? Why, for example, not accept Max Michel's priesthood so long he performs the rituals? God forbid that this is the Church's faith.
I may have sounded harsh, but this matter is of utmost importance.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13480.msg157921#msg157921 date=1342800212] Daniel, I am afraid that this is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we have the same faith. My own bishop will be meeting the Ecumenical Patriarch soon, as he regularly does, and he could not be more welcoming. Likewise the Russian bishop in Australia could not be more positive.
The response of one or many EO says absolutely nothing about our mutual faith. It only shows that some do not properly understand what we believe.
Fr. Peter you are doing an outstanding job defending the universal Orthodox faith of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
H.E. Metropolitan Seraphim, Your Reverence, and the British Orthodox Church, are brilliant.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157922#msg157922 date=1342801023] This also means that any laity can perform the sacraments so long he/she performs the correct rituals. This is nonesense.
"Before Pope Theonas' departure, he recommended that Abba Peter be his successor. When he was enthroned on the See of St. Mark, the church was enlightened by his teachings. It came to pass in the city of Antioch, that a man of high authority had agreed with Diocletian the Emperor, to return to paganism. That man had two children and because of him, their mother could not baptize them there. Therefore, she took them to Alexandria. On her way there, the sea was troubled by a violent storm and she was afraid that her two sons would drown and die without being baptized. She therefore dipped them in the sea three times saying, "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," then she cut her breast and with her blood made the sign of the Holy Cross over their foreheads.
Eventually, the troubled sea calmed down and she arrived safely to Alexandria with her sons. On the same day, she brought them to be baptized. Whenever, the Patriarch, St. Peter tried to baptize them, the water would solidify as stone. This happened three times. When he questioned her, she informed him of what had happened to her at sea. He marvelled and praised God saying, "That is what the church proclaims, that it is one baptism." Therefore, the baptism she performed in the sea was accepted by the Lord."
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157924#msg157924 date=1342801712] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157922#msg157922 date=1342801023] This also means that any laity can perform the sacraments so long he/she performs the correct rituals. This is nonesense.
"Before Pope Theonas' departure, he recommended that Abba Peter be his successor. When he was enthroned on the See of St. Mark, the church was enlightened by his teachings. It came to pass in the city of Antioch, that a man of high authority had agreed with Diocletian the Emperor, to return to paganism. That man had two children and because of him, their mother could not baptize them there. Therefore, she took them to Alexandria. On her way there, the sea was troubled by a violent storm and she was afraid that her two sons would drown and die without being baptized. She therefore dipped them in the sea three times saying, "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," then she cut her breast and with her blood made the sign of the Holy Cross over their foreheads.
Eventually, the troubled sea calmed down and she arrived safely to Alexandria with her sons. On the same day, she brought them to be baptized. Whenever, the Patriarch, St. Peter tried to baptize them, the water would solidify as stone. This happened three times. When he questioned her, she informed him of what had happened to her at sea. He marvelled and praised God saying, "That is what the church proclaims, that it is one baptism." Therefore, the baptism she performed in the sea was accepted by the Lord."
Comments
This 7th canon is a forgery and is not accepted by the Church. Only six out of the seven canons are accepted.
Source please?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157842#msg157842 date=1342688897]
This 7th canon is a forgery and is not accepted by the Church. Only six out of the seven canons are accepted.
Source please?
It is historically known that the 7th canon is an extract from a letter from Constantinople to the Chalcedonian Patriarch Marterious of Antioch in the year 470 (almost hundred years after the Council of Constantinople).
If you insist on rejecting this statement then I will make it again and manifestly support it with references in the paper I am researching at the moment.
It is impossible to deny that those who did not hold Trinitarian heresies were never baptised. They were received as being already baptised.
If you insist on rejecting this statement then I will make it again and manifestly support it with references in the paper I am researching at the moment.
Are you saying that the baptism of Aryans was accepted?
All heretics who were initially baptized by heretics have to be baptized in the Orthodox Church, just as we do with the Moslems, Jehovah witnesses, Aryans, Catholics, Protestants, .....
Those heretics were never baptized to begin with so we cannot say that they are (were) re baptized.
I will finish my paper and allow it to argue for me.
I will say that I believe you to be in error.
I am not going to argue with you.
I will finish my paper and allow it to argue for me.
I will say that I believe you to be in error.
Please, do not reduce this to just a debate. This is of utmost importance to how we view the faith and Tradition received in the Church.
I am not here to win arguments, but to sincerely explain, as much as God's grace allows, the genuine faith we have received.
Which of what I said is error? You really believe that Aryans were accepted with no baptism? You believe that the so called "7th canon of Constantinople" is in fact one that belong to the Council of 381?
If you just answer these three questions, then I think we set the tone for any further discussion.
This is the main issue I will be addressing, in the context of the ancient and Traditional practice of the Orthodox Church through the ages.
Your main argument, and these other points are side matters, is that the Eastern Orthodox do not have the Orthodox Faith and should be baptised.
This is the main issue I will be addressing, in the context of the ancient and Traditional practice of the Orthodox Church through the ages.
I am sorry that you have misunderstood me regarding the rebaptism of the EO.
Just to clarify: The EO and the OO do have different faiths as I explained in my previous posts.
Following, should they be baptized in the OO? Yes.
Is this done today? No.
Why? Leniency.
What is the practice? Confirmation only for the EO are considered apostates and that is how the Church treated the apostates throughout history.
As I said, I will not argue with you, but you are gravely mistaken.
Ok .. we will wait for your paper.
I pray that we do not take these discussions personally.
Just to clarify: The EO and the OO do have different faiths as I explained in my previous posts.
I still don't understand how the fait is different. As I stated in Post 86 above, "since we both condemn the heresies of Nestorianism, Eutechianism/Monophysitism, Appolinarianism, and I think we also reject Monotheletism in its strictist form (correct me if I'm wrong), then how can our faith be different Christologically? It is the same.
If you ask the EO if they believe that Christ is fully God, lacking nothing in His Divinity and Fully Man, lacking nothing in His Humanity, and that He is the self-same Logos of the Father Incarnate, fully constubstantial with the Father and fully constubstantial with us, having two essences united in the One Hypoststasis of the Logos Incarnate. They and us agree.
How then is the faith different?
You might want to read my book Orthodox Christology...
http://www.lulu.com/shop/father-peter-farrington/orthodox-christology/paperback/product-10969273.html
or one of my websites...
http://www.orthodoxunity.org
Our holy Fathers in all of the Oriental Orthodox Synods have stated that the EO and OO have the same faith. I have EO in my own congregation who are very devout and faithful and have the same faith. This is why EO have always been received simply by rejecting error and confessing the faith until the confusion of recent times.
I am writing a paper that will clearly show and demonstrate this with detailed references.
This is why we have different faiths.
I have studied these matters for the last 18 years, and I have participated in a variety of ecumenical and private dialogues.
The identity of faith has NOTHING to do with whether or not any particular person accepts another. This is illogical as I have shown. And in any case it is not true. Every EO bishop I have spoken to has stated that they consider the OO Orthodox and would commune OO.
You are entitled to your opinion but it is not true.
You are wrong. And on such an important matter I cannot allow you to state something that is so wrong.
I have studied these matters for the last 18 years, and I have participated in a variety of ecumenical and private dialogues.
The identity of faith has NOTHING to do with whether or not any particular person accepts another. This is illogical as I have shown. And in any case it is not true. Every EO bishop I have spoken to has stated that they consider the OO Orthodox and would commune OO.
You are entitled to your opinion but it is not true.
This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the Coptic Church. Unfortunately, you keep misrepresenting it.
If one rejects my faith, it means he holds a different faith no matter how long I say he has the same faith.
By rejecting to agree, the EO is basically saying we have a different faith.
Following, the two families have different faiths.
Well you can have the last word then. I am not sure what to say to object to your view without becoming heated. So I wish you well.
I am not here to have the last word. However, The truth must be told.
The burden is on you to prove that the current practice of chrismating the EO members is wrong.
I thought we have agreed that you will do you research and present Traditional and historical study as to why we should accept the EO as they are.
I am eagerly waiting for this.
I think we would have to consider the sacrament of the former church and to consider if the sacraments were in agreement. Then I guess, if they are similar then chrisimation would of being the answer. I don't know. I pray for the solution.
Respect is needed in our disagreement however, and the way we say something is in a way that is not to make the other feel defensive, but that are both are on the same side seeking a solution.
Oujai
The faith is different because the EO rejected our agreement. We initially agreed on their interpretation of the two natures and were ready for a full communion. However, EO backed out rejecting again our faith.
This is why we have different faiths.
Perhaps they rejected our insistance on Cyrillian Terminology, not so much the faith. From what I see, the faith is the same, despite terminological differences.
When we as OO examine their (EO) faith, we see it as the same faith, even if some of them (the EO) don't agree.
The fact that both the EO and OO reject Nestoriansm, Eutechiansim, and Apolinarianism, Arianism, and also Monotheletism by proxy means that we have the same Christological faith, despite the different expressions.
I don't think the different expressions amount to a different faith.
They say Dyophysitism and we say Miaphysitism. They and us mean Two Essences in the One Hypostasis.
If their insistance on teh Dyophysie expression and our insistance onthe Miaphysite expression is the only difference, this does not amount to a difference of faith. If it does, I don't see how.
While your experiences with the EO may be positive, sadly it is not always the case. Archbishop Stylianos, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Australia, firmly upholds that we are 'heretics' to this day. When HH Pope Shenouda visited Australia, Archbishop Stylianos openly warned all Greek Orthodox clergy and laity, that he would excommunicate them if they met with HH. Bishop Suriel has attempted many times to have dialogue with Archbishop Stylianos, each time having the door slammed in his face. A priest in our diocese was studying at the Greek Orthodox theological college in Sydney. Archbishop Stylianos was teaching one of the classes, and openly ridiculed our priest in front of the whole class for being a 'heretic'. I visited St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and was refused entrance to see the body of St Catherine because I was not 'orthodox'. I've also visited the Holy city of Jerusalem. The Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem treats all the Oriental Orthodox churches as heretics. Fights regularly break out between the EO Greeks and the OO Armenians because they view us as heretics. In the church where the Virgin St Mary's tomb remains, the EO pray at different times to the OO because they do not want to pray with 'heretics'. I can go on. Unfortunately, there are a lot of EO clergy and laity who still believe us to be heretics. I pray that one day the schisms of the church may cease. But as far as i'm concerned, we are still a long way off.
Keep me in your prayers,
Daniel
heretics don't get rebaptized if they had originally been baptized on the Coptic orthodox faith, but if they had been baptized on the heretic faith, then that's not accepted...
I'm not so sure this accurate. There are many facets of your claim. The ancient fathers are fairly unanimous in this accept. Heretics who were baptized by heretic clergy have a valid baptism if they were baptized in the name of the Trinity as Jesus Christ claimed in Matthew 28:19. I gave a list of heretics were required to be rebaptized and those who were not. The reason why some heretics were rebaptized is because the heresy denied the Trinity. If the heresy did not deny the Trinity, then they were not required to be baptized. These include Arians, Nestorians, Apollanarists, etc. We cannot make the claim that all who were baptized on the heretic faith are not accepted. Pope Peter I of Alexandria made a point to reaccept ex-Arians, while the Meletian sect refused (as did the cathari and others). Pope Peter and many Trinitarian fathers stated there must be a period of repentance. The councils of Nicaea and other councils reaffirm this.
Secondly, if one says a repentant heretic must be rebaptized because the clergy performing the baptism is a heretic, we reduce baptism to a work of merit, not a gift of salvation. It is unanimous, my salvation cannot be voided if my priest is a sinner or a heretic. My salvation cannot be contingent on another person. It is a gift of grace and I must accept it. There are no additional conditions.
Third, if one says a repentant heretic must be rebaptized because the person was baptized into heresy, then we also reduce the efficacy of baptism and salvation. Salvation is for the sick and needy. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." Matthew 9:12. Rebaptizing a heretic states his first baptism is useless and unefficacous. That is not to say that all original baptisms are efficacous. If the catechumen, the officiating priest and the religious denominatin faith see baptism as nothing more than ceremonious (as many Protestant religions do), then there was never an effective baptism that gave remission of sins, salvation and eternal life. Rebaptism is a misnomer. It should be called real baptism to distinguish from all previous fake baptisms. Real baptisms are sought out by those who own sickness and know they are sick. Ceremonious fake baptisms are for those who consider themselves healthy.
The onus to claim rebaptism is required for everyone outside the Coptic Church requires substantial proof against all ancient and current fathers and Orthodox belief systems.
The response of one or many EO says absolutely nothing about our mutual faith. It only shows that some do not properly understand what we believe.
If this is true, then we elevate the rite over faith. If we accept this logic, then faith is not important and we should accept the sacraments of all heretics, so long they perform the rituals.
This also means that any laity can perform the sacraments so long he/she performs the correct rituals. This is nonesense.
Faith is performed through the rituals not the other way around. Baptism is performed on the right faith in the Holy Trinity. How could a heretic, whose belief in the Trinity is distorted, baptize someone in the correct faith? How would an Arian who does not believe in the diety of the Son baptize one in His name?
Why then we require apostolic succession? Why, for example, not accept Max Michel's priesthood so long he performs the rituals? God forbid that this is the Church's faith.
I may have sounded harsh, but this matter is of utmost importance.
Daniel, I am afraid that this is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we have the same faith. My own bishop will be meeting the Ecumenical Patriarch soon, as he regularly does, and he could not be more welcoming. Likewise the Russian bishop in Australia could not be more positive.
The response of one or many EO says absolutely nothing about our mutual faith. It only shows that some do not properly understand what we believe.
Fr. Peter you are doing an outstanding job defending the universal Orthodox faith of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
H.E. Metropolitan Seraphim, Your Reverence, and the British Orthodox Church, are brilliant.
+++
This also means that any laity can perform the sacraments so long he/she performs the correct rituals. This is nonesense.
"Before Pope Theonas' departure, he recommended that Abba Peter be his successor. When he was enthroned on the See of St. Mark, the church was enlightened by his teachings. It came to pass in the city of Antioch, that a man of high authority had agreed with Diocletian the Emperor, to return to paganism. That man had two children and because of him, their mother could not baptize them there. Therefore, she took them to Alexandria. On her way there, the sea was troubled by a violent storm and she was afraid that her two sons would drown and die without being baptized. She therefore dipped them in the sea three times saying, "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," then she cut her breast and with her blood made the sign of the Holy Cross over their foreheads.
Eventually, the troubled sea calmed down and she arrived safely to Alexandria with her sons. On the same day, she brought them to be baptized. Whenever, the Patriarch, St. Peter tried to baptize them, the water would solidify as stone. This happened three times. When he questioned her, she informed him of what had happened to her at sea. He marvelled and praised God saying, "That is what the church proclaims, that it is one baptism." Therefore, the baptism she performed in the sea was accepted by the Lord."
http://copticchurch.net/synaxarium/3_29.html#1
The arguments all seem to be around it not making sense because you're baptised into a faith.
Are you baptised into a faith, or is faith a prerequisite for being baptised into the Church?
Does it matter what we think makes sense anyway? Will we "correct" what our fathers like St. Severus did in order to match our own understanding?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157922#msg157922 date=1342801023]
This also means that any laity can perform the sacraments so long he/she performs the correct rituals. This is nonesense.
"Before Pope Theonas' departure, he recommended that Abba Peter be his successor. When he was enthroned on the See of St. Mark, the church was enlightened by his teachings. It came to pass in the city of Antioch, that a man of high authority had agreed with Diocletian the Emperor, to return to paganism. That man had two children and because of him, their mother could not baptize them there. Therefore, she took them to Alexandria. On her way there, the sea was troubled by a violent storm and she was afraid that her two sons would drown and die without being baptized. She therefore dipped them in the sea three times saying, "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," then she cut her breast and with her blood made the sign of the Holy Cross over their foreheads.
Eventually, the troubled sea calmed down and she arrived safely to Alexandria with her sons. On the same day, she brought them to be baptized. Whenever, the Patriarch, St. Peter tried to baptize them, the water would solidify as stone. This happened three times. When he questioned her, she informed him of what had happened to her at sea. He marvelled and praised God saying, "That is what the church proclaims, that it is one baptism." Therefore, the baptism she performed in the sea was accepted by the Lord."
http://copticchurch.net/synaxarium/3_29.html#1
The arguments all seem to be around it not making sense because you're baptised into a faith.
Are you baptised into a faith, or is faith a prerequisite for being baptised into the Church?
Does it matter what we think makes sense anyway? Will we "correct" what our fathers like St. Severus did in order to match our own understanding?
What is the point of this story? Is it that a mother should perform baptism in the bathtub?
This was a miracle performed in a stressful situation. Do not make exceptions the rule.
I'm interested in how the understanding of the fathers behind accepting such exceptions is different than the understanding you are preaching.
I'm not interested in making exceptions the rule.
I'm interested in how the understanding of the fathers behind accepting such exceptions is different than the understanding you are preaching.
So what was (is) the understanding of the fathers? Is it that anyone can perform the sacraments? Of course not.