www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Other Sacramental Mysteries BAPTISED IN POLAND, UNBAPTISED IN GREECE

What is the difference between being baptised by some monks and by the local bishop?

The Serbian Orthodox martyrs of Jasenovac concentration camp were re-baptised (in water) and “baptised” (in blood) by criminals such as Miroslav Filipović, initially a Roman Catholic military chaplain of the Franciscan Order ("Fra Satana" or “Fra Sotona”) and later commandant of Jasenovac concentration camp and Stara Gradiška concentration camp, who, was expelled from the priesthood before the war had ended and, according to Ronald Rychlak, was "tried, laicized, and expelled from the Franciscan order before the war even ended” and was later found guilty, sentenced to death and hanged, wearing, according to his will, the robes of the Franciscan Order.

The fact that he was only a priest, and later a suspended priest, and not a bishop makes a difference, it is some kind of release or consolation for those who, unfortunately and unwittingly, are members of the same Church (the Catholic Church) or of the same order (the Franciscan one) or even to the same human race Filipović belonged.

That is the difference, Miroslav Filipović and those with him (chaplains as well, belonging to the same Franciscan Order) were, unfortunately, human beings as we are, members of the Catholic Church, and friars of the Order of Saint Francis, but, fortunately for us, human beings like them, they were first of all criminals. Fortunately Jasenovac prisioners undertood that Miroslav Filipović belonged first of all or only to Satan.

And believe me if I tell you that I am not saying that the Catholic hierarchy (many Croatian bishops and the Apostolic Nuncio to Croatia Marcone) had nothing to do with what happened at Jasenovac concentration camp.

I have lived in Serbia (under Tito's regime.) I fear that what I learned and saw about the wartime persecution is still able to cloud my mind with immense anger and deep pain. So I prefer not to touch on the subject in any substantial way.

World War Two and its aftermath was bathed in more than enough sin to go around for all 'sides.' We need to remember it, but not let it consume us. It is when the memories of evil consume our minds, our hearts and our bodies, that we lose our souls and the Evil One triumphes. Lord, have mercy.

Just what the holy Patriarch Pavle said when he blessed the memorial at the Jasenovac camp.

Опростити морамо, заборавити не смемо

To forgive, we must ...to forget, we dare not

We see some inconsistencies within Catholicism. The Holy See has denied that Anglicans have any Sacraments (except one, Baptism.) But the Archbishop of Canterbury, although no more than a baptized layman, attends such major Vatican events as Pope John Paul's funeral dressed in vestments as if he were an authentic bishop.

And the recent proposal to commune Anglicans by a senior British cleric which is tantamount to a recognition of Anglican Orders and Eucharist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...holic-communion-Archbishop-suggests.html

The episcopalian bishop (or priest) in the picture, although no more than a baptized layman, attends such major Orthodox events as the Great Blessing of the Waters dressed in vestments as if he were an authentic bishop (priest). If I am not wrong the bishop in the picture is the Archbishop of America Athinagoras.



http://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/162537

Catholic priests this time?

http://floridamemory.com/items/show/94844

Burial (probably of Patriarch Athinagoras) at the Ecumenical Patriarchate (in the picture the Metropolitan of Chalkidon Meliton, of blessed memory, Ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew I, then archimandrite, and the Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey)

http://fanarion.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/blog-post_4261.html

Definitely the presence of the Anglican clergy specially if they are wearing liturgical vestments in Catholic and Orthodox ceremonies is a problem

Their mere presence can be embarrassing sometimes...

http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/files/2013/02/ens_020613_greekpatriarch.jpg


http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/files/2013/02/ens_020613_jacobswell.jpg

http://library.episcopalchurch.org/sites/default/files/ELO_031908_gaza_08_lg_1.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/28/article-0-1A8D7C45000005DC-435_634x427.jpg

The presence of Catholic and Orthodox clergy at Angican ceremonies can be no less embarrassing...obviously for the visiting clergy

http://www.jmeca.org.uk/st-pauls-west-jerusalem-re-dedicated

Anglican clergy over the last few decades have indeed become an embarrassment with changes in morality and the male priesthood.

However in happier days several Orthodox Churches reached the conclusion that

if a large segment of the Anglicans were able to bring their faith into conformity with the orthodox faith we would be able to enter into communion with that group and the clergy would not require ordination.

But today, as in the past, we ordain individual Anglican clergy. With recent developments in Anglicanism it is now unlikely that a mass reconciliation will ever occur.

But we remain grateful to the Anglicans who, while we were poorly established in Western countries, charitably lent us their churches.

Here is something of interest from the former Metropolitan of Kiev who after the Revolution became primate of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (ROCOR)

Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders.
By the Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky
(President of the Synod of Karlovtsi)

http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/khrapovitsky_orders1927.html

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

“In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it”.

The Melkite Union of 1724, the activity of Catholic missionaries in the Near East and Transylvania or the churches charitably lent by the Catholics to their Orthodox brethren in Western Countries, although interesting elements if we want to study the history of Orthodox-catholic relationships during the last centuries, are not valid theological or canonical arguments for affirming the validity of the baptism administered by Catholic ministers or for denying it.

Yes, the 1775 Council of Constantinople mandated the baptism of Roman Catholic. It was a local Council 9f Constantinople and never received by the Russian Church. But there was a subsequent Council in 1875 by the Patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople which shows that the Council of 1775 was just one more contribution to the on-going variety of practice in receiving converts.

The 1875 Council acknowledges the diversity of practice among the Orthodox Churches and hopes that one day a Pan-Orthodox Council will formulate a common policy.

The Council of 1775 cannot be seen as the last word on the matter and after all, even Constantinople itself ignores it throughout the whole world.

Russian canons and praxis on receiving converts, even today, stem from the Great Moscow Council of 1666 which adopted the decisions of the Council of the Four Patriarchs of 1484.

"if a large segment of the Anglicans were able to bring their faith into conformity with the orthodox faith we would be able to enter into communion with that group and the clergy would not require ordination. But today, as in the past, we ordain individual Anglican clergy. With recent developments in Anglicanism it is now unlikely that a mass reconciliation will ever occur".

The character of the conversion ("group" or "individual") has nothing to do, from my humble point of view, with the valitidy of the sacraments.