Hello all.
Let me first say I am neither Orthadox or Roman Catholic. I am from the Anglican side of the house. Here is what I would say to each side;
To my Orthadox brothers I would say you are correct to this extent bapitism by immersionais the norm as set forth in the Holy Scritures. Howeverr unde bring her back r the canons and practice and doctrine of the undivided church, baptism by pouring was accepted as the propper matter and the outward sign was water with out any requirement as to the method of applying the sign. The application would be the use which was open to each jurisdiction. Therefore, baptism by pouring whether by A Roman Catholic, or others who practice infant baptism is valid. See the book of Acts where houshould baptisms were performed. There is one faith, one Lord, and onebaptism, one God and Father of all. Finally, it is my opinion that to require validly baptised be rebabptised is not proper and has no scritural support. This negates any claim that Eastern Orthdoxy is the true church. See the following paragph. When the Patriach excomminicated the entore western instead of the scriptural solution of calling for a genral counsil of the church it erred. It must be noted, the Patriach was well within his rights to reject both demands.
I say this to my Roman Brethen. To claim for Rome that its bisihip ordanary to be hte visible head of the church with membership therin required for salvation is highy arrogant and historically false.
I do not think it is either arrogant or historically false to require mutual communion as the condition of Christian love, including communion with the visible sign or sacrament of unity. He is, to quote St. Gregory Palamas (Homily XXVIII, p. 223 in Christopher Veniamin’s translation) the “foundation stone” and “shepherd and chief pastor over His whole church” (p. 224). St. Ephrem of Syria puts into Christ’s words to Peter “I I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn of My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be the executor of My treasures. I have given you authority over all My treasures;” Tertullian (
De Pudicitia) calls him the “Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops”, and our beloved Father St. Maximos the Confessor will write of "the blessed Pope of the holy Roman church - that is, to the Apostolic See - to which belong government, authority, and power to bind and to loose over all the churches that are in the world, in all things and in every way” (Letter to Peter, in Mansi, x, 692). And St. Jerome, a Father for the Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholics, will say “to follow Christ is to be in communion with the Pope, and therein lies the only security”. It follows pretty straightforwardly from the authority vested in Peter as Prince of the Apostles.
An unbiased look at church history shows that while there was a church in Rome, the term Roman Catholic came into use alog with the term Eastern Ortthodox only after the great schism of 1054.whcic split the church in half. History also tells us that the roman bishop made claim to universal jusidiction several times and was soundly and repeatedly rejected by the undivided church. Further, when the Pope oversteped his canonical and ecclisiastical authoirty by demanding the eastern half of the church add the filioque and threatening excomunication by not adding the filioque and acceprting him and the head of the church, he broke with the polity, canon law and theology of the undivied church.
Your history is simply wrong. No Pope has EVER insisted that the Eastern Churches add the filioque to the Creed. My ancestors came from southern Italy where Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics have always lived side-by-side in communion with each other (although they were almost all Greek until the Norman invasion), and we have never said the filioque. Byzantine Catholics do not say the filioque. Occasionally Polish troops occupying Ukraine would barge into temples and force congregations to add the phrase at gunpoint, but that was not the policy of the Church. It was the policy of Polish barbarians who also martyred St. Josaphat of Polotsk for coming into communion with Rome and tainting the otherwise pure Latin constitution of the Church. The Filioque was said during the Creed at the reunion councils as a way of affirming its truth, not as a change of discipline.
What the Pope did - not necessarily all too prudently - was grudgingly PERMIT it to be said in Spain as a way of combatting the Arian heresy, and from there it ended up being added to the Creed by ignorant Frankish scribes. It was always treated with suspicion by Rome, even to the point when Pope Leo had the Creed inscribed in gold plates without the filioque and hung in St. Peter’s Basilica.
I hope my two cents worth has helped.
Oh, and greetings from Columbus, by the way! Do you happen to know of an Anglican church in the town that says Evensong? It’s a service I would like to hear. I’m not as familiar with the Anglican tradition as I would like to be.
I’ve been looking for a church with evening services (like an Episcopalian one) to get a job as an organist (in the evening so I can still go to Divine Liturgy every week) - is Evensong a service that uses organ, or am I barking up the wrong tree by looking for Episcopalian churches?
