|
1 members (San Nicolas),
505
guests, and
84
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,529
Posts417,668
Members6,181
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204 |
Originally posted by ByzantineAscetic:
Heretic baptism wouldnt emit light, if it was a lamp.
I am not saying that Heretics are without Individual Grace from God of course not, thats not my place to comment on, but in regards to "Sacramental Validity" thats a different story.
In Christ
Daniel Dear Daniel, Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo does not recognize the rebaptism of converts. Cyprian of Cathage admits that antiquity do not support his views on rebaptism of converts. Moreover, Re-baptism was resisted by Pope St. Stephen I as against the teaching of St. Cyprian of re-baptizing converts. This was attested by St. Vincent of Lerins in the Commonitorium. The Carthaginian controversy of repeating Baptism was finally set at rest by a decision of the council of Arles, in 314, which ordered, in its Eighth Canon, that if baptism had been administered, even by heretics, in the name of the Trinity, then it was valid.  The council of Arles[France; A.D. 314] contains this canon on rebaptism: Canon 8. Regarding the Africans, who use their own law to rebaptize, it has been enacted that if anybody comes to the church from heresy, let them ask him the Creed: and if they see that he has been baptized in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let the hand be imposed upon him only, that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if the person questioned does not answer with this Trinity, let him be baptized. [Mansi 2: 472] As for St. Cyprian[A.D. 200-258] and Pope St. Stephen[A.D. 254-257] Cyprian's position, that those baptized by heretics who then came into the Church needed to be baptized again, was very common in the Eastern and African Church at the time. Pope Stephen held to the traditional practice of the Church which considered these baptisms as being valid and the imposition of hands should be used for acceptance into the Church. Cyprian recognized that his own position on rebaptism was not based on the traditional practice of the Church, yet believed that the custom of the Church was simply wrong and should yield to reason. Cyprian and Stephen were going opposite directions on a one way street. Pope Stephen resisted Cyprian and stood fast on the practice of the Church stating, “nihil innovetur”-- “let there be no innovation!”. The council of Carthage [A.D. 256], under Cyprian, ruled in favor of “rebaptism” and wrote to Pope Stephen: ... we force no one, nor do we lay down a law, since each prelate has the right of his free will in the administration of the Church, and will give an account of his actions to the Lord. [Ep. 72. CSEL 3: 778] Cyprian believed that the council of Carthage had every right to rule as it did in this matter. He also believed that he had no right to enforce his view on any other bishop and vice versa. St. Jerome spoke on the matter: Blessed Cyprian... condemning the baptism of heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and the twenty-second from Blessed Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually the very same bishops, who had laid down with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, published a new decree. [Contra Lucif., 23. PL 23: 186] Ultimately, and in the end, Pope Stephen and the Tradition of the Church prevailed over St. Cyprian and his council of 256. The Latin Father Vincent of Lerins sums it up this way: Agrippinus [Cyprian] of venerable memory, who was once bishop of Carthage, first of all mortals, against the divine Canon, against the rule of the Universal Church, against the opinion of all his fellow priests, against the custom and institutions of the elders, thought that rebaptism ought to be practiced... Then Pope Stephen of blessed memory, bishop of the Apostolic See, together indeed with the rest of his colleagues but more than the others, resisted, thinking it fitting, I think, that he exceed all the rest as much by the devotion of his faith as he did by the authority of his place. What happened in the end? What force was there in the African Council or decree? By God's gift, none. Everything, as if a dream or a story, was trampled upon as if useless, abolished, superseded... [PL 50: 645-6] [St. Augustine wrote:] 'as there is in the catholic church something that is not catholic [i.e., unholiness in some of its members], so there may be something that is catholic outside the catholic church.' [Ep. 185.38, 185.42] . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204 |
Originally posted by ByzantineAscetic:
Heretic baptism wouldnt emit light, if it was a lamp.
I am not saying that Heretics are without Individual Grace from God of course not, thats not my place to comment on, but in regards to "Sacramental Validity" thats a different story.
In Christ
Daniel I would like to point out that Emperor Constantine is venerated in the Orthodox Church as a saint and he was baptized by an Arian bishop. This fact just goes to the face of those Orthodox who deny the sacramental validity of baptism administered by heretics.  Now Daniel, I would like to ask, if there is no grace in the administration of the sacrament of those outside of the Church, why why and a big why do St. Constantine being venerated as a saint because he received a graceless baptism? Elexeie ps. forgive me for any offense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204 |
Originally posted by Robert Horvath.:
It seems many converts today want the perfect Church, not the New Testament Church. They want long services and long beards as a proof that they have found the island of "true believers" at last.
But that is a superficial facade, a pharasical
illusion. A true Christian is a true Christ. And if we do not do the works of Him whose name we call our own we are not worthy of Him. Converts want a Church that is tailored to them. They in spite of denials want the Anthonite
McChurch; they want to be a part of a counter-cultural sect of hold-outs from the 17th Century.
They neither understand what asceticism means nor have they been guided into maturity. (If this upsets you then you have proved my point).
Orthodox Catholicism is the Way. It is not the toy or property of any select groups of "true" whatever. Some complain they do not get enough from our Byzantine Catholic parishes, but in reality they will never be satisfied until they are on a desert Island with the "remnant." It is a satanic mentality. Christ created us to empty ourselves for others! I work weekends at a local soup kitchen and help feed poor and needy families and you know it has changed my life. When you look into the eyes of a hungry mother and her two kids as she says "thank you, God bless you!" then you know you have seen Christ. We must reach out beyond ourselves. What good is long services without doing the work of Christ? What about the poor, what about single parent moms, what about the elders who are lonely, the homeless?! How dare we sit spiritually obese when others are dying not only for lack of spiritual food, but also for lack of real food. May God have mercy upon me, a sinner for not doing enough.
Dear Robert, Good post! I agree with you. I have met someone who is being drawn to Orthodoxy because of the liturgy and was disgusted on what is happening in the Roman Liturgy. He said that he found that attending the Orthodox liturgy is spiritually fulfilling. I disagree on his view as seeing the liturgy as a "spiritual fulfillment." The Liturgy is not the end it is just a mean to get to the end. What if that "spiritual fulfillment" is lost? What will happen next? Change churches again? That is stupid. (forgive me of the use of the word). We must seek "the God of consolations and not the consolations of God" as Teresa of Avila puts it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1 |
Elexeie & Robert Horvath,
Excellent posts.
james
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395 |
I was not baptized byzantine catholic I was baptized a protestant, in a non-denominational church and dont have a baptismal certificate.
The Form, I believe it was trinitarian form. I have been taught that no mater what Form its in since its a gracless baptism it is still gracless no matter how it appears in the externals. Also it was not Thrice Immersion as the Orthodox do.
As far as I know about the JP, there american Monastery says come and be baptized, not Chrismated. Maybe there is more to it then that.
Thanks for your guys concern but my views have and will not change and have made up my mind in my decision and all of you trying to convince me other wise is just giving me nothing but headaches and more problems then I truley want.
Also this will be my last post on byzcath, nice talking to you guys since I came on. I feel more confortable on ECafe. Thanks Again. God Bless. Good Bye.
Humbly In Christ
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204 |
Dear Daniel (Byzantine Ascetic),
Sorry to hear that you have left the forum. I know that some of the post have direct to the point and may have offended you and I ask for you forgiveness. I if would give you a lsat advice, I'll give you this thought from St. Therese:I will let Therese answer this part:
"My God, how varied are the ways by which Thou dost lead souls. In reading the Lives of the Saints we find a great number of whom nothing has remained to us after their death: not a smallest souvenir, not a written line. Others there are, on the contrary, like our Holy Mother Saint Teresa, who have enriched the Church with their sublime doctrine, not fearing to reveal the secrets of the King (Tobias 12), in the hope that souls might know Him better and love Him more. Which of these two ways pleases Our Lord best? It
seems to me that they are equally pleasing to Him.
All the well-beloved by God have followed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by whom the Prophet wrote: 'Say to the just that all is well.'
(Isaias 3:10). **Yes, all is well when we seek only the Divine Will.**"
In the liturgy, in communicating the teachings and belief of the Church, in transforming one more Christlike, in teaching "how to pray", which is more developed? Which pleases Our Lord best? I would just point to the phalanx of saints and holy people produced by these two churches.
Conversion is a life long process and it just doesn't end in entering a particular church. It goes beyond that. Always remember this: "In the evening of this life we will all be measured by Love."
Regards,
Elexeie
and God bless you in your journey.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395 |
My Last and Final Comment, on the Byzantine Forum About being Chrismated into the Jerusalem Patriarchate. I recieved this off of the USA Jerusalem Patriarchate Monastery, it sums up my entire belief about the "Re"-Baptism of Heretics. Things like this is what I base my opinion on. Take care Many are the means by which we attain our salvation. And these, so to speak, in a ladderlike fashion are interlinked and interconnected, all aiming at one and the same end. First of all, then, is the baptism which God delivered to the sacred Apostles, such being the case that without it the rest are ineffectual. For it says: "Unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.""' The first manner of generation brought man into this mortal existence. It was therefore imperative, and necessarily so, that another, more mystical manner of generation be found, neither beginning in corruption nor terminating therein, whereby it would be possible for us to imitate the author of our salvation, Jesus Christ. For the baptismal water in the font takes the place of a womb, and there is birth for him who is born, as Chrysostom says;... while the Spirit which descends on the water has the place of God who fashions the embryo. And just as He was placed in the tomb and on the third day returned to life, so likewise they who believe, going under the water instead of under the earth, in three immersions depict"" in themselves the three-day grace of the Resurrection, the water being sanctified by the descent of the All-holy Spirit, so that the body might be illumined by the water which is visible, and the soul might receive sanctification by the Spirit which is invisible. For just as water in a cauldron partakes of the heat of the fire,"' so the water in the font is likewise transmuted, by the action of the Spirit, into divine power. It cleanses those who are thus baptized and makes them worthy of adoption as sons. Not so, however, with those who are initiated in a different manner. Instead of cleansing and adoption, it renders them impure and sons of darkness.
Just three years ago, the question arose: When heretics come over to us, are their baptisms acceptable, given that these are administered contrary to the tradition of the holy Apostles and divine Fathers, and contrary to the custom and ordinance of the catholic and Apostolic Church? We, who by divine mercy were raised in the Orthodox Church, and who adhere to the canons of the sacred Apostles and divine Fathers, recognize only one Church, our holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is her Mysteries [i.e. sacraments], and consequently her baptism, that we accept. On the other hand, we abhor, by common resolve, all rites not administered as the Holy Spirit commanded the sacred Apostles, and as the Church of Christ performs to this day. For they are the inventions of depraved men, and we regard them as strange and foreign to the whole Apostolic tradition. Therefore, we receive those who come over to us from them as unholy and unbaptized. In this we follow our Lord Jesus Christ who commanded His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit";... we follow the sacred and divine Apostles who order us to baptize aspirants with three immersions and emersions, and in each immersion to say one name of the Holy Trinity;"' we follow the sacred Dionysios, peer of the Apostles, who tells us "to dip the aspirant, stripped of every garment, three times in a font containing sanctified water and oil, having loudly proclaimed the threefold hypostasis of the divine Blessedness, and straightway to seal the newly baptized with the most divinely potent myron [i.e. chrism], and thereafter to make him a participant in the supersacramental Eucharist" and we follow the Second... and Penthekte holy Ecumenical Councils, which order us to receive as unbaptized those aspirants to Orthodoxy who were not baptized with three immersions and emersions, and in each immersion did not loudly invoke one of the divine hypostases, but were baptized in some other fashion.
We too, therefore, adhere to these divine and sacred decrees, and we reject and abhor baptisms belonging to heretics. For they disagree with and are alien to the divine Apostolic dictate. They are useless waters, as Sts. Ambrose and Athanasios the Great said. They give no sanctification to such as receive them, nor avail at all to the washing away of sins. We receive those who come over to the Orthodox faith, who were baptized without being baptized, as being unbaptized, and without danger we baptize them in accordance with the Apostolic and synodal Canons, upon which Christ's holy and Apostolic and catholic Church, the common Mother of us all, firmly relies.
Together with this joint resolve and declaration of ours, we seal this our Oros, being as it is in agreement with the Apostolic and synodal dictates, and we certify it by our signatures.
In the year of salvation 1755,
Cyril, by God's mercy Archbishop of Constantinople
New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch
Matthew, by God's mercy Pope and Patriarch of the great city of Alexandria, and Judge of the Ecumene
Parthenios, by God's mercy Patriarch of the holy city of Jerusalem and all Palestine Oros of the Holy Great Church of Christ on the baptism of converts from the West (1755/56) http://monastery.org/oros.html http://monastery.org/ In Christ Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,075
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,075 |
Daniel,
Of course you negelect to mention that only 3 years before the Holy Synod had deposed Cyril for pushing the rebaptism of Catholics, but the Turks put Cyril back in power and he then promulgated that Oros.
You should have a look at the Akoloutheia of 1484 for the reception of Catholics into Orthodoxy. No baptism there.
All this just goes to show that you can't base your opinions solely on what you find on the internet. There is so much more out there that you are simply missing.
anastasios
|
|
|
|
|
