R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I don’t know. Sorry.
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well moving along 
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Celibacy was the universal discipline in the whole early church pre-Constantinople. Yes there were married men who took on Holy orders, but took a vow of celibacy when they became ordained.Kmon23;12542713]If I am mistaken then well, my mistakeAlthough I thought celibacy wasn’t a universal rule of the priesthood during the early church, and that there were some who were married.
Yes you have been misinformed. The Orthodox councils post-Constantinople to make changes to the already celibacy rule in practice, by allowing Marriage to their holy orders at the same time they keep a celibacy rule to their bishops. Which Rome has never left the ancient celibacy rule of discipline practiced in holy orders except marriage is an option for Deacons.
Yes, the Roman Rite never leaves the Word of God, the pouring, sprinkling, was the norm in Jewish ceremonial laws, which the Latin never left these Hebrew purification rites of pouring and sprinkling, immersion is not excluded, but according to Jesus and the Apostles Jewish ceremonial laws, sprinkling and pouring was sacred and the norm.
Ezekiel 36;25 I will Sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean
Jn.13;8 Jesus washes Peter’s feet by pouring
Titus 3:5,6 Saved us through washing poured out
Hebrews 9:13 Sprinkle cleanses, these ceremonially unclean and sanctify them
Hebrews 9:19 Moses sprinkles to cleanse the guilty of conscience with pure water
Leviticus 14:7 7X’s Sprinkle the one to be cleansed, pronounce clean
Numbers 19:7 for unclean person, pour fresh water over them
Numbers 19:19 Sprinkle those who are unclean
Isaiah 52:15 He will sprinkle many nations and Kings
Numbers 8:7** thus shall you do to them, to cleanse them, sprinkle water **
Just as Moses sprinkled the blood of goats over God’s chosen
Peter sprinkles the blood of the lamb of God over God’s chosen
.
If it says immersion is preferred over sprinkling, know this! Sprinkling was active.
Remember by the time we get to the Didache, the Christians are banished from all Jewish synagogues. The Christians at this time reveal a sentiment that begins to take on their own identity from their Jewish roots of pouring and sprinkling which was already in practice.
The Latins continued to use what was preferred but never left Jesus tradition of pouring and sprinkling.
**In conclusion, by virtue of the pouring, sprinkling or immersion the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and in order for our humanity to receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son.
If the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son and only from the Father? what need have we of the Son? When the Father can send us His Holy spirit without the Son, if the Holy spirit proceeds the Father alone.
Filioque completes salvation for all time.**
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Joel 2:28
28 “And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
So, God promises His Spirit will be poured out upon us. And Jesus tells us:
Acts 1:5
5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
So, are we not baptized in the Spirit poured out upon us?
Now, maybe it’s different with water, and maybe the Greek words are different than these English translations suggest (I’m not checking), but perhaps baptism by pouring is evident in these verses.
28 “And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
So, God promises His Spirit will be poured out upon us. And Jesus tells us:
Acts 1:5
5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
So, are we not baptized in the Spirit poured out upon us?
Now, maybe it’s different with water, and maybe the Greek words are different than these English translations suggest (I’m not checking), but perhaps baptism by pouring is evident in these verses.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
If you wish to go by the strength of etymology alone, then βαπτίζειν means to immerse.Joel 2:28
28 “And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
So, God promises His Spirit will be poured out upon us. And Jesus tells us:
Acts 1:5
5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
So, are we not baptized in the Spirit poured out upon us?
Now, maybe it’s different with water, and maybe the Greek words are different than these English translations suggest (I’m not checking), but perhaps baptism by pouring is evident in these verses.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
See post #395. There, I posted:
It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).
But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative “baptism” is a sort of “immersion”; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, “I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be “immersed” in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” Did this mean they would be “immersed” in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include “pouring.”
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
How in the world does one argue Baptism when the same issues existed and have for a very long time in Orthodoxy? What about Russia and the Old Believers? Some of these debates simply make no sense to me, sorry.
I think we should get back to the Filioque since the debate is well established and the point of this thread. We do not know “exactly” what the EO is saying in regards with a clear understanding provided. I do not see where the Filioque did anything but elaborate further. If there is an issue “aside” from this elaboration then please elaborate.
Is the EO point theological or a dispute of the addition itself. If it is theological, thats what we want to talk about. Not the disheartening hyperbole often accompanying.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOld_Believers&ei=OpqBVKu8CZOeyQT16YLIBg&usg=AFQjCNEnUb_odBybzWWqHLGeR6Bj2G2IeA
I think we should get back to the Filioque since the debate is well established and the point of this thread. We do not know “exactly” what the EO is saying in regards with a clear understanding provided. I do not see where the Filioque did anything but elaborate further. If there is an issue “aside” from this elaboration then please elaborate.
Is the EO point theological or a dispute of the addition itself. If it is theological, thats what we want to talk about. Not the disheartening hyperbole often accompanying.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
There is no issue in Orthodoxy. Triple immersion is how baptisms are performed. Either way arguing about Old Believers is like me arguing Catholic practice from what Old Catholics do. It’s not a very honest way to have a discussion.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Yet its the very essence of which these discussions are seen in full scope. Be it I think Old Believers are right on this particular point really isn’t the point. The point is the very issue existed and for a very long time in Russia as being discussed and pointed out. So whats uncharitable is to assume a position, which would like to somehow assume that everything always been the same, and this is, and most important the “only” or “true faith” and the only way God accepts Baptism. Rather bold in relation to the thread. Don’t you think?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Scripture does not reference triple immersion (or immersion specifically, at all).
So, triple immersion must be found within either Tradition or tradition.
What is the earliest reference to triple immersion in T(t)radition?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Baptisms have been performed by triple immersion in Russia since Christianity was brought there. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.Yet its the very essence of which these discussions are seen in full scope. Be it I think Old Believers are right on this particular point really isn’t the point. The point is the very issue existed and for a very long time in Russia as being discussed and pointed out. So whats uncharitable is to assume a position which would like somehow assume that everything always been the same, and this is, and most important the “only” or “true faith” and the only way God accepts Baptism. Rather bold in relation to the thread. Don’t you think?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
That is not how they have been always performed in the Church and historically and nor is this true with Russia. Though your wording is cute.
And further to tie it into the Filioque Debate, we have the same paradigm of thinking which suggests only one way is exemplar or the “true” and “only”, so yes I see a comparison of like thinking which frankly I find rather triumphant. Just saying.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
So when the blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles in the upper room at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them, each one were dipped in some water floating in the upper room three times? NO, triple immersion is not the ONLY WAY how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in baptism.
God is not bound by an Orthodox or old Catholic false opinion that a valid baptism can only be valid by a triple immersion.
The Old Catholic rides a horse to Mass and tells the present Catholic; You new Catholics are wrong, because you drive your cars to Mass, and we old Catholics ride horses and buggy to Mass, therefore your attendance to Mass is not fulfilled.
disciplines and disposition of the instrument do not validate or invalidate a sacrament.A soldier dying on a battle field, asked the chaplain to be baptized. The Chaplin takes his drinking water canister and pours clean water three times in the name of the Trinity over the dying soldier and baptized the soldier before his life expired.
How many souls have been lost by those holding to a triple immersion baptism, when these dying souls asked for baptism on their death beds, when no river, lake or spa pool was available for them for a valid triple baptism. Who can deny these dying souls who cry out for baptism, because they can not reach a font of water large enough for a triple immersion valid baptism
A discipline of pouring, sprinkling which is a biblical sacred ceremonial practice for cleansing never invalidates the sacrament of baptism.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally. A triple immersion is never the only way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in baptism, and a Triple immersion only, limits and restricts the Work of God by a tradition that is introduced after the ancient practice of sprinkling and pouring, known and practiced by Jesus and His Apostles from their ceremonial cleansing practices, that was handed down in Christian baptism, which immersion became later a preference for Christians, but it is wrong to believe this new immersion baptism practice replace and removed the ceremonial sacred Tradition of pouring and sprinkling used in ancient Christian baptism and remains today when at certain holy days, the priest sprinkles the whole community with holy water.
I would challenge the Orthodox here, to explain their theology of the Holy Spirit proceeding alone from the Father without the Son in baptism from a triple immersion only? and prove why the pouring and sprinkling prevents, invalidates a baptism of for what ever reason the Orthodox reject the ancient Judeo/Christian practice of pouring and sprinkling?
Being that baptism moved the discussion from pouring and sprinkling invalidates a baptism according to Old Catholics who agree with Orthodox only a Triple immersion in conducted in baptism when all others do not qualify?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
It is true the normative way to baptize has always been immersion. That is simply a fact, Russia not excepted.That is not how they have been always performed in the Church and historically and nor is this true with Russia. Though your wording is cute.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not always.
Modern practice may vary within the Eastern Rite; Everett Ferguson cites Lothar Heiser as acknowledging: “In the present practice of infant baptism in the Greek church the priest holds the child as far under the water as possible and scoops water over the head so as to be fully covered with water”,[163] and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states that the rite “whereby part of the candidate’s body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder … is still found in the Eastern Church”.[44] Eastern Orthodox consider the form of baptism in which the person is placed in water as normative; only in exceptional circumstances, such as if a child is in imminent danger of death, may they baptize by affusion or, since there is always some moisture in air, perform “air baptism”.
“Air baptism”, Joey?
People in glass houses…And although you take exception to what you mistakenly believe to be the false practice of the Catholic Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.
Frankly, I think this is another false accusation against Catholicism that you will have to let go of.
You’re quickly running out of legitimate reasons to remain in schism. :yup:
S
Seraphim73
Guest
If, as your own catechism states, immersion is the most expressive way why would you not do that? Who wants to be less expressive in their worship of God? Again, this is a fundamental difference between us. And by the way I don’t say you are a schismatic. How about we avoid such inflammatory, inaccurate language? Either way, quite to the contrary, my discussions here have done nothing but reinforce for the me truth of Orthodoxy.Not always.
Modern practice may vary within the Eastern Rite; Everett Ferguson cites Lothar Heiser as acknowledging: “In the present practice of infant baptism in the Greek church the priest holds the child as far under the water as possible and scoops water over the head so as to be fully covered with water”,[163] and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states that the rite “whereby part of the candidate’s body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder … is still found in the Eastern Church”.[44] Eastern Orthodox consider the form of baptism in which the person is placed in water as normative; only in exceptional circumstances, such as if a child is in imminent danger of death, may they baptize by affusion or, since there is always some moisture in air, perform “air baptism”.
“Air baptism”, Joey?
And although you take exception to what you mistakenly believe to be the false practice of the Catholic Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.
Frankly, I think this is another false accusation against Catholicism that you will have to let go of.
You’re quickly running out of legitimate reasons to remain in schism. :yup:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If, as your own catechism states, immersion is the most expressive way why would you not do that? Who wants to be less expressive in their worship of God? Again, this is a fundamental difference between us. And by the way I don’t say you are a schismatic. How about we avoid such inflammatory, inaccurate language? Either way, quite to the contrary, my discussions here have done nothing but reinforce for the me truth of Orthodoxy.
- YOUR baptism was in a tub or pool indoors and not outdoors in cold, running water according to the practice of the Early Church as documented in the Didache, was it? Thus, YOUR church does not practice the most preferable form of baptism, either. 'Nuff said.
- YOUR church acknowledges that pouring and sprinkling are valid even if they are not preferable. Therefore, you should not denigrate the valid baptism of any Christian. To do so is Orthodox snobbery. Period.
- YOUR church acknowledges “air baptism” in the event of emergency on the basis that there is “always some moisture in the air.” To my knowledge, this is unheard of in the Catholic Church.
You prefer triple immersion. So do we. Let’s find something more substantive to quibble over.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
If it is preferred then the Church should say so and then do it.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Good point.
So, were you baptized outdoors in cold, running water since that is preferable?
THAT’S MY THIRD REQUEST
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I can guarantee you that you are mistaken. In Greece, there are significant doubts as to the validity of baptisms done by sprinkling. Pouring is acceptable in an emergency, but its use outside of an emergency is considered to be an abuse. As for air baptism, I’ve never once seen any conciliar document which has showed forth such a desperate measure to be valid. In such an emergency (perhaps a man dying in the desert), one could perhaps pronounce the baptismal formula and hope in God’s mercy, but if such a person were to survive, he would almost certainly be baptized in accordance with the canons of Carthage which state that those who have doubtful baptisms or cannot remember if they have been baptized should be baptized.
- Status