Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

But the Church has clarified again and again that the western use of the words guilt, sin, stain, punishment generally refer to our fallen state- She has clarified that when the word guilt is used in the sense in which is used above, it is merely figurative and speaks of the (collective) fallen nature of man, NOT the personal fault of Adam. The individual suffers from the effects of Adam’s sin and bears the guilt (that is, he’s faulted) of his own personal sins upon attaining the age of reason, and that’s the understanding we find in the writings of the saints from centuries past.

Or Is not the Catholic Church the only rightful interpreter of her own teachings?

That could be a credible explanation, if not for the various popes who have demonstrated (at your ecumenical councils) belief in individual guilt.

Pope Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons : “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or only with original sin go down into hell, but there they receive unequal punishments".

Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence : “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of unequal kinds.”

If you are correct in asserting that the RCC has always taught its current understanding of original sin, why is guilt of it alone enough to damn someone?

 

[Hesychios]

Orthodox beliefs on the necessity of baptism, the nature of First Sin, the fact that no one can see God in His essence, etc. have been discussed innumerable times here. The archives are full of discussions, if anyone is interested, and Google is your friend as well.

I don’t have the time this week to address them, but there is plenty of material already on hand. Whether one wishes to agree with any position or not is not material, the details have all been laid out within recent months, not to mention years of posts.

I will only say this much, as Patriarch Bartholomew has stated in his address to Georgetown University the Orthodox Catholic faith and Roman Catholicism are ontologically different. I will add that anyone who would like to think otherwise is deceiving himself (or herself).

 

[Marybeloved]

Why do you think baptism is required to see God? The understanding of baptism is connected to the understanding of original sin. The Western Church sees baptism as required because it washes away the stain of original sin, allowing full union with God. That is why a baby still requires it.

The East does not say baptism is required to wash away this stain, and their baptismal doctrine is not in fact identical to the Catholic Church.

Sorry, I’ve seen that you’re Anglican and not orthodox.

It’s not about “allowing” full union with God- It’s the beginning of this union already in the soul. But I’ll ask, what makes you think the orthodox do not require the baptism of infants? I’ve looked at all the several orthodox sites I can find and the teaching on baptism is that it is necessary for salvation and there’s an obligation to baptize infants as well as adults. They also talk about the beginning of the new life of the soul at baptism- the death of the old man and the birth of the new- this is precisely the teaching of the RC. So what are you talking about? Do you think this “old man” can inherit eternal life?- Why does he need to be made new if the old can do just fine with eternal life?

I’ll repeat again- The speculation was an attempt to answer the question- if baptism is necessary how about those who die unbaptized?- Those for whom the old man has not been put to death, nor the new man born in their souls, yet it wasn’t their fault?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Who has been condemned to hell? The Catholic Church doesn’t state not anyone is condemended by name to hell. They go as far as to state they only know what Christ in scripture states about Judas. They don’t even state for sure he is there, they defer to Christ on this.

Peace

 

[Marybeloved]

That could be a credible explanation, if not for the various popes who have demonstrated (at your ecumenical councils) belief in individual guilt.

Pope Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons : “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or only with original sin go down into hell, but there they receive unequal punishments".

Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence : “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of unequal kinds.”

If you are correct in asserting that the RCC has always taught its current understanding of original sin, why is guilt of it alone enough to damn someone?

I have seen those quotes explained in quotations of a pope of the 13th Century (not quite sure of the details, I promise to try and get a link and post it here) as follows:

The privation of heaven (beatific vision) is the punishment of Adam’s sin, punishment in which we share as explained earlier, basically our fallen state. The hell of the damned is the punishment of those who willfully deprive themselves of grace. The middle ages thinking was that those who die without baptism go down into hell (Here meaning a type of separation from God not necessarily the damnation we usually mean when we say hell) but one is a punishment of pain (the damned) and the other simply a privation of something wonderful the soul would have had it been baptized, but the soul would still be perfectly happy- so no suffering for the latter. The thinking was that the unbaptized lacked the grace necessary for union but could not be damned because of no personal fault. The Church pope says that God has mysterious ways of providing this necessary grace outside baptism.

 

[RTully]

Sorry, the Catholics base their claim of being the church of Christ on being the Church founded on st. Peter, the Rock. What you’re referring to is apostolic succession, just one of the signs of the church- We don’t deny it to those who have it.

Yeah, I know they claim that. I just do not agree with that interpertation like most other non Catholics. The rock is Peters faith as he proclaimed just before that in Mathttew 16:16

Also, there is no historical proof that I am aware of, other than faith alone the Catholic Church of today was started by Peter. The Orthodox believe the Apostle Paul started their church.

I also think if Peter had Monopoly rights to the Church it would have been written about extensively in all the Gospels.

Also, the word Catholic wasn’t even around till what, the 2nd century? Why change the name of Christs church?

Honestly even though I do not believe that Peter was given Monopoly rights to Christs Church, I do sincerley hope he DID start the Catholic Church as I also hope Paul started the Orthodox Church and they were not pure man made institutions to gather power.

 

[joe370]

Hey Blue…

What makes you think those people in Heaven or Hell can get nothing from our prayers? That seems to be a major assumption.

What makes you think, that if God wanted to give the individuals in question some benefit from our prayers, he could not give the benefit to them in a time before their deaths?

So, in your opinion, what could those souls in hell, get from our prayers? Perhaps released from hell? Man, that would be great, for my prayer is that hell is only temporary.

What use would our prayers be for those souls in heaven, who are now with God, and have anything and everything they could ever want, in accordance to God’s will, for all eternity?

Who or what, in your mind, can answer those questions for you and I?

I do pray and believe that if God wanted to give the individuals in question some benefit from our prayers, he could give the benefit to them in a time prior to their death, but I was talking about those souls who are now in heaven or hell.

Thanks for the feedback brother…

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

The Orthodox believe the Apostle Paul started their church.

Eh, we don’t believe that. The Orthodox Church proclaims God himself as the founder (St. Paul founded many churches (lower case c), one of which was the Roman See - which he co-founded with St. Peter).

 

[RTully]

Eh, we don’t believe that. The Orthodox Church proclaims God himself as the founder (St. Paul founded many churches (lower case c), one of which was the Roman See - which he co-founded with St. Peter).

Sorry and thanks for the Clarification, Stupid Wikipedia!

“The Orthodox Church claims to trace its development back through the Byzantine or Roman empire, to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_orthodox

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry, I’ve seen that you’re Anglican and not orthodox.

It’s not about “allowing” full union with God- It’s the beginning of this union already in the soul. But I’ll ask, what makes you think the orthodox do not require the baptism of infants? I’ve looked at all the several orthodox sites I can find and the teaching on baptism is that it is necessary for salvation and there’s an obligation to baptize infants as well as adults. They also talk about the beginning of the new life of the soul at baptism- the death of the old man and the birth of the new- this is precisely the teaching of the RC. So what are you talking about? Do you think this “old man” can inherit eternal life?- Why does he need to be made new if the old can do just fine with eternal life?

I’ll repeat again- The speculation was an attempt to answer the question- if baptism is necessary how about those who die unbaptized?- Those for whom the old man has not been put to death, nor the new man born in their souls, yet it wasn’t their fault?

I’ve never been taught that unbaptized babies do not go to heaven or that baptism is necessary for salvation. For us, the sacramental life of the Church (beginning with baptism) is the only guaranteed path of obtaining salvation (and then, even for those who follow, there is no real guarantee, as we cannot know how well one has entered into union with God). We only say that, for the unbaptized, we cannot know what will happen to them but that the mercy of God might provide for them salvation anyway (for example, it is widely believed that catechumens who die are still able to enter into paradise).

 

[Bluegoat]

Seriously? Are you orthodox- Am I to understand that you are unaware that your church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation? What do you understand by the term salvation? If the Eastern does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, someone please correct me.

Sorry, I’ve seen that you’re Anglican and not orthodox.

It’s not about “allowing” full union with God- It’s the beginning of this union already in the soul. But I’ll ask, what makes you think the orthodox do not require the baptism of infants? I’ve looked at all the several orthodox sites I can find and the teaching on baptism is that it is necessary for salvation and there’s an obligation to baptize infants as well as adults. They also talk about the beginning of the new life of the soul at baptism- the death of the old man and the birth of the new- this is precisely the teaching of the RC. So what are you talking about? Do you think this “old man” can inherit eternal life?- Why does he need to be made new if the old can do just fine with eternal life?

I’ll repeat again- The speculation was an attempt to answer the question- if baptism is necessary how about those who die unbaptized?- Those for whom the old man has not been put to death, nor the new man born in their souls, yet it wasn’t their fault?

Sometimes I put things in question form to make a point more clearly, not because I don’t have an answer. I most certainly did not say that the Orthodox don’t require the baptism of infants - I said they do not require it for the washing away of original sin, and they san an unbaptized infant who dies will go to Heaven.

I asked you why you thought that people required baptism to see God so that you would actually make the connection with the doctrine of original sin yourself. In Catholic theology, the original sin of Adam and Eve has stained or even defaced our nature so that it is no longer good and perfect in the same way. That stain, just like our own individual sins, is a kind of barrier between ourselves and God. In baptism, we are at the same time washed of all sin, original or personal, and incorporated directly into the Body of Christ which is a means of Grace.

That is not quite the same as what the Orthodox believe. The do not use the idea of original sin which in the West largely came through Augustine. Baptism will wash away any actual sin, and incorporates one into the Body of Christ which is a means of Grace. But an unbaptized person with no personal sin - like an infant - is not separated from God by her own nature and will not be bound for Hell or Limbo. Presumably this would also be true of an adult who remained sinless, though that is a rather rare phenomena.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’ve never been taught that unbaptized babies do not go to heaven or that baptism is necessary for salvation. For us, the sacramental life of the Church (beginning with baptism) is the only guaranteed path of obtaining salvation (and then, even for those who follow, there is no real guarantee, as we cannot know how well one has entered into union with God). We only say that, for the unbaptized, we cannot know what will happen to them but that the mercy of God might provide for them salvation anyway (for example, it is widely believed that catechumens who die are still able to enter into paradise).

As for the bold part, if you’ll just go back to my previous posts, I think you’ll see that this is just the point I’ve been trying to make. You say you’ve been taught that the sacramental life- for which baptism is most certainly necessary- is the only guaranteed path to salvation. This is what the RC teaches- We say (as I’ve said I think a gazillion times here) the means that God has given to the church for salvation are these- (The sacraments- and then prayer, ascetism etc). God has not told us how he’ll deal with those who through no fault of their own cannot access these means of salvation, but we have every reason to hope in his mercies that he is able to and indeed has provided in ways and means known to him alone for them to receive the same grace.

The way it was explained to me by a Priest during my formation classes is this- The means of Salvation, Baptism and the other sacraments are like a pool that God has constructed for his people, a pool to be found in the church. Now to this pool, all sorts of people come who want to bathe in its life giving powers, some learn about the pool, look at it and simply choose to walk away. These are those who willfully refuse God’s salvation. But there are others who never learn about the pool because nobody ever tells them (the church never reaches them) and there are others who cannot leave their place to come to the pool themselves due to some kind of incapacity- This is the “through no fault of their own group”. The Church is saying, God has given us the pool, but we believe he can miraculously take its life giving waters to those who cannot come to it, or cannot choose to come to it through no fault of their own. In other words, God’s power is not limited to the activity of the Church.

As to the first part- I’ve already said that the belief in limbo was an attempt to reconcile the necessity of baptism, which all my reading on the net indicates is indeed orthodox teaching, and the conviction in God’s mercies. It was the speculation of theologians, as resembles all the speculations of theologians on practically all articles of faith going back to the very beginning of the church, and present in all the churches- It was not an article of catholic faith.

 

[Marybeloved]

Yeah, I know they claim that. I just do not agree with that interpertation like most other non Catholics. The rock is Peters faith as he proclaimed just before that in Mathttew 16:16

Also, there is no historical proof that I am aware of, other than faith alone the Catholic Church of today was started by Peter. The Orthodox believe the Apostle Paul started their church.

I also think if Peter had Monopoly rights to the Church it would have been written about extensively in all the Gospels.

Also, the word Catholic wasn’t even around till what, the 2nd century? Why change the name of Christs church?

Honestly even though I do not believe that Peter was given Monopoly rights to Christs Church, I do sincerely hope he DID start the Catholic Church as I also hope Paul started the Orthodox Church and they were not pure man made institutions to gather power.

You’re free to interpret the bible as you wish or any other “historical evidence” or lack of it, for that matter. My point was directed at your claim that the Catholic Church bases her claim on the fact that “we’ve been here longest”- She does not. And just to clarify another misunderstanding I’ve noted- The Church’s claim is not that she (the whole Catholic Church) was founded by st. Peter, But that Christ founded her (the whole Church, not the Roman Church) on a foundation rock called st. Peter, and this is situate on his bishopric (Roman Church). St. Peter at some point became the bishop of Rome and was succeeded by others, all traceable in church History. Who exactly started this church in Rome isn’t the argument with the orthodox. st Peter did become it’s Bishop and was succeeded by others down to Benedict XVI. The exact nature and extent of the papacy is the argument- Was it just a primacy of honor or more than that?- That’s the real disagreement between the orthodox and the catholic church.

The Universal Church was called one, holy, catholic and Apostolic by the Church fathers- You can take it up with them (and with the orthodox, for that matter) if you have a problem with it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

As for the bold part, if you’ll just go back to my previous posts, I think you’ll see that this is just the point I’ve been trying to make. You say you’ve been taught that the sacramental life- for which baptism is most certainly necessary- is the only guaranteed path to salvation. This is what the RC teaches- We say (as I’ve said I think a gazillion times here) the means that God has given to the church for salvation are these- (The sacraments- and then prayer, ascetism etc). God has not told us how he’ll deal with those who through no fault of their own cannot access these means of salvation, but we have every reason to hope in his mercies that he is able to and indeed has provided in ways and means known to him alone for them to receive the same grace.

The way it was explained to me by a Priest during my formation classes is this- The means of Salvation, Baptism and the other sacraments are like a pool that God has constructed for his people, a pool to be found in the church. Now to this pool, all sorts of people come who want to bathe in its life giving powers, some learn about the pool, look at it and simply choose to walk away. These are those who willfully refuse God’s salvation. But there are others who never learn about the pool because nobody ever tells them (the church never reaches them) and there are others who cannot leave their place to come to the pool themselves due to some kind of incapacity- This is the “through no fault of their own group”. The Church is saying, God has given us the pool, but we believe he can miraculously take its life giving waters to those who cannot come to it, or cannot choose to come to it through no fault of their own. In other words, God’s power is not limited to the activity of the Church.

As to the first part- I’ve already said that the belief in limbo was an attempt to reconcile the necessity of baptism, which all my reading on the net indicates is indeed orthodox teaching, and the conviction in God’s mercies. It was the speculation of theologians, as resembles all the speculations of theologians on practically all articles of faith going back to the very beginning of the church, and present in all the churches- It was not an article of catholic faith.

But that’s not what I said. I did not say that the Orthodox Church views baptism as necessary for salvation as you contend. If that were the case, then martyred catechumens would not be able to enter paradise (unless you subscribe to the baptism in blood idea). There are far too many canonized martyrs who were unbaptized for the view of baptism being necessary for salvation to be true. The Orthodox Church teaches that baptism sacramentally brings somebody into the Church, in which salvation may be found. But it does not teach that salvation cannot be found outside of the Church nor that the Mystery of baptism guarantees salvation.

 

[Marybeloved]

Sometimes I put things in question form to make a point more clearly, not because I don’t have an answer. I most certainly did not say that the Orthodox don’t require the baptism of infants - I said they do not require it for the washing away of original sin, and they san an unbaptized infant who dies will go to Heaven.

I asked you why you thought that people required baptism to see God so that you would actually make the connection with the doctrine of original sin yourself. In Catholic theology, the original sin of Adam and Eve has stained or even defaced our nature so that it is no longer good and perfect in the same way. That stain, just like our own individual sins, is a kind of barrier between ourselves and God. In baptism, we are at the same time washed of all sin, original or personal, and incorporated directly into the Body of Christ which is a means of Grace.

That is not quite the same as what the Orthodox believe. The do not use the idea of original sin which in the West largely came through Augustine. Baptism will wash away any actual sin, and incorporates one into the Body of Christ which is a means of Grace. But an unbaptized person with no personal sin - like an infant - is not separated from God by her own nature and will not be bound for Hell or Limbo. Presumably this would also be true of an adult who remained sinless, though that is a rather rare phenomena.

No, you didn’t say that the orthodox don’t require baptism of babies (at least not directly, any way) but you did explain that the western belief that a stain exists which must be wiped is the reason they (the west) have- or require babies to be baptized- Thereby implying that the orthodox who don’t believe in this stain-being-wiped deal do not- At least that was my understanding, forgive me if I’m wrong.

Now the Stain being wiped business- Sorry, I don’t buy it as the Catholic Church’s understanding of original sin. The term “stain” is used to differentiate between the physical consequences of the fall (bodily death, physical suffering etc) and the *spiritual *consequences (the tendency to evil is a characteristic of man’s soul, not his body). What the Church is saying is that baptism does not take away the physical consequences of the fall, after all, we do still die, get sick and suffer all kinds of problems.

Baptism is aimed at the spiritual renewal of the man, where a new man (the church calls it a spiritual organism) is born, possessing gifts of the Holy Spirit, making it possible for him to commune with the Blessed Trinity now living in his soul after baptism.
This new life, just like the natural life of a man, requires sustenance, or else will starve to death- It must be fed and strengthened through the sacraments, prayer and asceticism. This life too, just like the natural life of a man, can be killed- through deliberate, unrepentant, persistent “turning away” from God (sin). Now as this “new man” grows, there will a war between him and the fallen man- hence mortification (or asceticism). But if the christian persists in the ways of his lord and the sacraments and certainly constant prayer and submission of his will, the new life will overtake his whole soul and life- He will become what we call a saint.

The physical renewal will happen at the resurrection where we will be given “new bodies” as such- or our bodies will be perfectly made new and we will resemble Christ at the resurrection. For “the incorruptible saints”, it seems this renewal of the bodies has already began in a slight way (My thinking).

 

[Marybeloved]

But that’s not what I said. I did not say that the Orthodox Church views baptism as necessary for salvation as you contend. If that were the case, then martyred catechumens would not be able to enter paradise (unless you subscribe to the baptism in blood idea). There are far too many canonized martyrs who were unbaptized for the view of baptism being necessary for salvation to be true. The Orthodox Church teaches that baptism sacramentally brings somebody into the Church, in which salvation may be found. But it does not teach that salvation cannot be found outside of the Church nor that the Mystery of baptism guarantees salvation.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or are we just talking past each other?- The RC does not teach that baptism guarantees salvation. Where did you get that from?- The means given to us by our lord are the sacraments- We haven’t been told of any other. I’ve already said that the Church does not limit God’s power to it’s own activity (Sacraments and liturgy). As to the catachumens and martyrs, there’s such a thing as “baptism of desire” which means the same grace given to the church and accessed in the sacraments, can be accessed without baptism by water by those who love God, have made up their minds to live and die for him, and who would certainly have been baptised with water had they the opportunity- It still falls within what i said. The church has means given by God, but God is not limited by them.

 

[marlo]

Thats not True, The Pre Nikonian Russian Orthodox has an older form of practice of the liturgy and than the Eastern Orthodox. Russian Patriarch Nikon did not know this that he forced the change from their old practice to the common liturgical practice of the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates. The pre Nikonian Orthodox will be later called Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church. It will be known later that the Russian Orthodox has an OLDER form of practice than the Modern Russian orthodox. The Modern Russian Orthodox has accepted the Old Rite as another liturgical practice and some members of the Old rite group became in-communion with the modern Russian Orthodox and practice their own rite.

Hi,
I heardan Eastern Orthodox person who said that the Eastern Orthodox Church has not changed its beliefs and practices from the time of the apostles, but that the Roman Catholic Church has. He didn’t give any details of what doctrines specifically the Catholic Church has changed, but cited Vatican II as an example, which didn’t make any sense to me because Vatican II didn’t really change its doctrines but rather the form of its liturgy and its relationship with people of other religious beliefs. I would like to hear an Eastern Orthodox say exactly which doctrines he believes that the RCC has changed. Don’t bother with the filioque clause, that’s such a nitpicky argument.

 

[JohnVIII]

Hi,

I heard from an Eastern Orthodox person who said that the Eastern Orthodox Church has not changed its beliefs and practices from the time of the apostles, but that the Roman Catholic Church has. He didn’t give any details…

The fact is that this is only a perception, not a reality. There are differences between Eastern Orthodox & Roman Catholic, so one side assumes that the other must have changed, otherwise why the difference?! The fact is both of us have changed a little, but we have NEVER been exactly the same! Even from each of our founding by different apostles of the same Christ we STARTED OUT in some ways different from each other. When we were in official communion with each other (i.e. “one” Church), we did what we could to not let our differences become an issue. But since the time in our history that we started to consider ourselves two separate Churches we learned to use our differences against each other.

 

[searn77]

Thats not True, The Pre Nikonian Russian Orthodox has an older form of practice of the liturgy and than the Eastern Orthodox. Russian Patriarch Nikon did not know this that he forced the change from their old practice to the common liturgical practice of the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates. The pre Nikonian Orthodox will be later called Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church. It will be known later that the Russian Orthodox has an OLDER form of practice than the Modern Russian orthodox. The Modern Russian Orthodox has accepted the Old Rite as another liturgical practice and some members of the Old rite group became in-communion with the modern Russian Orthodox and practice their own rite.

From what I have read, Pat. Nikon didn’t originally force the Constantinople liturgical practices onto the Russian Church. It had more to do with the Tsar of the time who wanted the change. And the churches in Russia didn’t have to go along with the reform. But when the Tsar felt much opposition from the Russian people over the Constantinople liturgical practices he pressured Pat. Nikon into banning the former Russian practices completely.

And it wasn’t like once these certain Russians left the official Russian Church that they established the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church. It was a little more fragmented and different. They originally didn’t have any bishops so once the priest’s died they didn’t have anyone to ordain new people to the clergy. Some of these Russians who rejected the Constantinople liturgical practices took this as a sign that the end of the world was about to happen and held on to some odd apocalyptic beliefs.

Others had bishops and priests ordained by the official Russian Orthodox Church and they accepted clergy from the official Russian Orthodox Church to join them. But some of the people didn’t believe that the offical ROC had any grace so in their minds these ordinations and clergy who came over were false. This sadly caused some to schism away from this Old Rite Church. So today you have what are known as the priested and un-priested Old Believers. And within both of these groups there are groups who are not in communion with each other for one reason or another, kind of like the Old Calendarists.

 

[Marybeloved]

I thought I’d give quotations from orthodox sites that explain the orthodox meaning of baptism
All Italics are my own writing.
From russianchurchwebsites.com/baptisminorthodoxchurch.html
*Under the title:*The institution of the sacrament of Baptism

"It was the Lord Jesus who instituted Baptism. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mathew 28:19). “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God”.

[The purpose of Holy Baptism
To remove the consequences of the ‘original sin’.
To wash away all other sins committed before the time of baptism if the person is beyond the age of infancy. To unite the person to “The Body of Christ” (That is, the Church) and to open the doors of salvation and eternal life to him or her.

Further down the page
"Do you unite yourself to Christ?"
The renunciation of Satan and the union with Christ expresses our faith that the newly-baptized child has passed from one master to another, from Satan to Christ, from death to life. The bold is my own- Anyone can read the whole page to get all the relevant information available

This document, which I gather is about the orthodox sacramental life, titled:The Orthodox Cycle of Life can be read here orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/guidech3.pdf

“The Mystery of Orthodox Baptism has been terribly misunderstood and misrepresented in Orthodox theological and spiritual thinking, particularly among Orthodox in the West. Roman Catholic and Protestant influences have greatly blurred the true meaning of what Baptism is and what it does for the believer. In fact, many nominal Orthodox Christians think of Baptism as some quaint initiation rite. But as Saint Cyril tells us, the Mystery
of Baptism transforms the entire person—body and soul—, so that after Baptism we embrace a new life, spiritually restored to the state of innocence and purity for which God created us.” I found it quite interesting that the author blames the lack of appreciation for the deep meaning of Baptism by western and nominal orthodox on Roman Catholics! Here the orthodox are, insisting that Baptism is just introduction (initiation) into the Church where salvation is found, and a Catholic is insisting that it’s much more than that! I also loved the quote at the beginning by st Cyril of Jerusalem Great indeed is the Baptism which is offered you. It is a ransom to captives; the remission of offenses; the death of sin; the regeneration of the soul; the garment of light; the holy seal indissoluble; the chariot to heaven; the luxury of paradise; a procuring of the kingdom; the gift of adoption.102

Here’s another quote by traditionalist orthodox who refuse to view non-orthodox baptism as valid at all-Baptism and Grace
"It is Orthodox baptism—and Orthodox baptism alone—which begins to fulfill the saving work of our Lord in the human person in the fullest sense. Whereas a believer can be led to repentance (even St. John the Forerunner baptized a baptism of repentance), only in the baptized Orthodox Christian can there be restoration to the true self and recovery from a state of corruption and stain—only an Orthodox baptism can restore the ontological integrity of man (cf St. Athanasios On the Incarnation)."

-It maybe that there are numerous frauds on the net masquerading as orthodox, teaching all sorts of lies-Perhaps. But I wanted to list some to show where I’m getting my information on orthodox teaching on baptism, that’s what is available to me. Of course any person can google “orthodox baptism” or “Eastern orthodox teaching on baptism” or whatever, to see for themselves just what information is there on the very deep, rich and apostolic teaching of at at least some orthodox on baptism and not just rely on oversimplifications given in arguments.**