Filioque Debate

[Seraphim73]

Good point.

So, were you baptized outdoors in cold, running water since that is preferable?

THAT’S MY THIRD REQUEST

No I was baptized in a baptismal pool. But you know this is not relevant to the question. We are talking about the normative practice, not simply what is possible in certain circumstances. Again this issue is you’ve taken an exception and made it the rule.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Cav-

Nice of you to join us…I haven’t heard from you since the “Schmemann” posts. I do hope you’ve had a chance to read the three papers he wrote:

PROBLEMS OF ORTHODOXY IN AMERICA
The Canonical Problem
The Liturgical Problem
The Spriitual Problem

I’m making my way through them, albeit slowly, since they don’t really apply to me. We should probably start a new thread if you want to discuss those papers in depth.

As for the points I made about Orthodox baptism, let me assure you that I am trying to source EVERYTHING I post about Orthodoxy from your own websites. The challenge, of course, is that you folks don’t necessarily agree on some things amongst yourselves, so when I post something from one Orthodox group or site, you disagree with it.

By the way, my REAL interest is in seeing your response to the points I have posted temporarily in my signature. I’d like to know how you address what appears to the the fatal flaw of Orthodoxy. Again, if you decide to attempt a refutation, I think you should start another thread…we’re supposed to be discussing the ‘Filioque’ here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No I was baptized in a baptismal pool. But you know this is not relevant to the question. We are talking about the normative practice, not simply what is possible in certain circumstances. Again this issue is you’ve taken an exception and made it the rule.

Thank you, Joey. I appreciate your response to my question.

Obviously, as you have anticipated, the reason I asked is simply to point out that in the Early Church (if the Didache is to be believed) the preferred method of baptism is immersion in cold, living (running) water. Your baptism was by immersion. Mine was by pouring.

Are we both validly baptized? According to Catholicism, yes. According to some Orthodox, yes. But according to other Orthodox, no.

Now, if one group of Orthodox disagrees with a second Orthodox church over a fundamental matter such as the proper form of valid baptism by which believers are brought into the Church, can they both be right? One of them MUST be teaching error.

So, does doctrine matter in the one, true Church? Or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable within the Church?

This state of affairs exists for one reason: Orthodoxy has no final, infallible authority to determine what is right and wrong for the entire Church.

You like to say that Protestants are the progeny of Catholicism, but it seems to me that the fruit of the Byzantine Schism is that your circumstances are almost identical to those of the Protestants whom you hold in such disdain.

Private judgment, receptionism and lack of authority has made each individual member of each autocephalous church the ultimate authority about what is and is not true doctrine.

 

[Kmon23]

Thank you, Joey. I appreciate your response to my question.

Obviously, as you have anticipated, the reason I asked is simply to point out that in the Early Church (if the Didache is to be believed) the preferred method of baptism is immersion in cold, living (running) water. Your baptism was by immersion. Mine was by pouring.

Are we both validly baptized? According to Catholicism, yes. According to some Orthodox, yes. But according to other Orthodox, no.

Now, if one group of Orthodox disagrees with a second Orthodox church over a fundamental matter such as the proper form of valid baptism by which believers are brought into the Church, can they both be right? One of them MUST be teaching error.

So, does doctrine matter in the one, true Church? Or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable within the Church?

This state of affairs exists for one reason: Orthodoxy has no final, infallible authority to determine what is right and wrong for the entire Church.

You like to say that Protestants are the progeny of Catholicism, but it seems to me that the fruit of the Byzantine Schism is that your circumstances are almost identical to those of the Protestants whom you hold in such disdain.

Private judgment, receptionism and lack of authority has made each individual member of each autocephalous church the ultimate authority about what is and is not true doctrine.

You pose an interesting question on the idea of an infallible source of authority, one that made me initially an RCIA candidate. However, these disagreements in my opinion don’t pose much of a problem within practical application, especially when oikonomia is applied.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You pose an interesting question on the idea of an infallible source of authority, one that made me initially an RCIA candidate. However, these disagreements in my opinion don’t pose much of a problem within practical application, especially when oikonomia is applied.

Right, its a different conversation which I think I was attempting to tell a poster on another thread conflicted with Orthodox-Catholic thinking, ultimately the letter of law is discerned not by the individual but the Bishop who indeed has this privilege. However one is arrived at from the other which requires discernment. So pastoral care is a key component. The problem here is diversity of thinking which as you’ll see on that other thread, its definitely diverse as is for example with contraceptives and NFP in the east. So I would think, perhaps I am wrong Randys point still stands.

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

Having read the last 20 pages or so in the ecclesiology debate, I would like to point out glaring inconsistencies in the defense of the various autocephalous communions, and the frank inability (and consistent circularity) of the claims to evidence that any oneof the autocephalous groups are either a true part of the One True Church; or, if they just impartially participate in it as a real thing in the world; can capably (that is, consistently) relay its pedigree. That is: its Divine-bestowed witness to the essential Christian faith that Christ appointed its mission to provide all persons.

It was the said that local/regional and patriarchal jurisdiction is a non-negotiable form the division of Church authority to cleric, while all-the-while inherited independently from individual clerics back, to the apostles without being headed by Peter (among other assertions as to why he nor his successor, nor any cleric might have a universal jurisdiction, as it would be inconsistent with the others). But, case after case has obliterated this requirement in the Fathers, Councils and even the makeup of the so-called ‘true orthodox[ies]’ where doctrinally-equal jurisdictions do in fact contradict, where authoritatively-equal patriarchs at the source.

Then it was said that, ultimately it is only problematic because the claims of ecclesiology ultimately can’t be based on dogmatic teaching or de fide clearity. But is that a dogma (i.e. a true, orthodox doctrine)? We are told so–once again without any means to ascertain why this or that orthodoxy, or this or that cleric, ultimately is within such a unity, and so as to speak for, the True Church. Instead we are told we ought to focus on ‘oikonomia’ (dogmatically . . it seems,) over dogma–and dare I ask the further question of how this dogma be rooted and proved as the orthodox one?

Next we are told to ignore actual, issues of the conflicting nature of discerned-as-ultimate oikonomia itself within different claimed-to-be-orthodoxies-of-equally-authoritative-apostolic-pedigree, even where universal councils require to be the content of the Apostolic faith that the true Church proclaim and assent to (e.g. the Holy Spirit, the Creed, etc etc) while still having to assume that ‘oikonomia’ is supremely relevant and can be shown and interpreted by someone (?) to be a de fide element in all of this.

Finally we are assured that so long as all have (this is the criterion? it is the ultimate de fide test? where is it absolutely incorporated as the final, ultimate criterion of ecclesial unity without other conditions of equal importance?–I submit to you: NOWHERE) Eucharistic communion with all the others of equal claims to pedigree within the spheres. And so, this ecclesial communion, if had, suffices to possibly be “One” (and so a candidate for the One True Church). But then when immediately pressed with counter examples (one easily could enumerate others if you but honestly true) where this ISN’T the case in separate-communions-of-equal-claim-and-pedigree-of-pure-orthodoxy – then we are given a litany of excuses that don’t acknowledge that this is literally impossible if any one of the orthodoxies are a monolith.

The TRUE Church is NOT the
[Dis-unified, ultimately-ungatherable-to-single-consistent-body-of-essential-faith] - [Unfollowable, ultimately-impracticable-consistently-and-piously-as-to-the-practice-of-the-essential-faith] -
[Conciliaristic/Donastic, ultimately-democratic-representationally-congregationed-nationally-differentiated-geographically-isolated] -
[Gnostic - claims-to-authoritative-succession-to-ultimate-essential-authority-in-the-faith-mysteriously-hidden-by-fallacy-or-cyclically-scapegoated-pedigree]

CHURCH.

Ladies and Gentleman: we are talking about the
-[ONE]-
[HOLY]-
[CATHOLIC] and
-[APOSTOLIC]- . . . -the TRUE
[CHURCH].

Something is not revealed to be the true Church so as to interestingly be ANYTHING if its truth-claims reduce to contradictory, circular fallacy. Something is not one if it is broken into inconsistent, ultimately contrary parts in its (de fide) faith (that’s not one church, that’s not even one body of faith!). Something is not a Church if it can’t teach de fide things about the God who created it to reveal His Faith(!) uniformly and consistently to the faithful that it serves. Something is not holy if holiness is itself an unpracticable gnostic idium disconnected from any means to de fide preach it. Something is not Catholic (universal to the whole), if is ultimately defined by local, regional, political, national, democratic, less-than whole and universal standards.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Good point.

So, were you baptized outdoors in cold, running water since that is preferable?

THAT’S MY THIRD REQUEST

In Alaska, a holes were typically cut in the ice for baptism to gain access to water for baptism. Read about the missions into Alaska by Russian Orthodox priests prior to the purchase of the land by the U.S.

For our family’s baptisms were all preformed in California, they were done inside with ice cold water. There were several older children baptized when my youngest was and one little boy stiffened up like a board in the freezing cold & the priest had a little trouble getting him dunked. He was to old to be held in the priest’s arms & dipped under. The non-Orthodox in attendance were scandalized by the horrified look on his face not being accustom to this ancient Christian Tradition.

The preferred is full immersion in cold running water. If cold running water isn’t accessible, cold still water is fine.

Never have I heard of a warm water Orthodox baptism.

The only time I’ve come across reference to sprinkling baptism is in condemnation of the Roman Catholic practice of it, like in the Orthodox Church’s official reply in August 1895 to the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII.

NEVER in all my years have I ever heard of an air baptism. I’d like to see your reference on that one.

 

[Randy_Carson]

NEVER in all my years have I ever heard of an air baptism. I’d like to see your reference on that one.

The article reads in part:

For the sacrament of Baptism to be complete and valid the following needs to occur:

1. The epiclisis (calling upon) of the Holy Trinity – the Baptism must take place in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for it to be canonical.
2. Three immersions in water, which symbolises Christ’s three-day burial and resurrection. Through ecclesiastical economy the Church allows for a person to be sprinkled (or even baptised in the air) if they are in danger of dying and are unable to be immersed in water. However, sprinkling water is performed in extremely rare situations and the Church has never made this a general rule as practiced in the Western Church.

greekorthodox.org.au/general/orthodoxchristianity/sacramentsandservices/thesacramentofholybaptism

 

[prodromos]

NEVER in all my years have I ever heard of an air baptism. I’d like to see your reference on that one.

I have heard of one case, which Elder Paisios may have referred to in one of his books, where a couple visited a monk with their new baby. The monk asked if he could hold the baby and then “waved the child in the air three times” (he was actually moving the baby in the sign of the cross). Not many days later the child became ill and subsequently died. The monk later explained that he recognised that the child would soon die and so performed an emergency baptism in the only way he could under the circumstances. .

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have heard of one case, which Elder Paisios may have referred to in one of his books, where a couple visited a monk with their new baby. The monk asked if he could hold the baby and then “waved the child in the air three times” (he was actually moving the baby in the sign of the cross). Not many days later the child became ill and subsequently died. The monk later explained that he recognised that the child would soon die and so performed an emergency baptism in the only way he could under the circumstances. .

Thank you for sharing that story.

BTW, the link that I provided was from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thank you for sharing that story.

Disheartening conversation on what Gods ministers can do in the vineyard of the Lord with Living Water and the amount they should apply. How much, how much living water does one need? One drop of the Lords blood saved mankind.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Disheartening conversation on what Gods ministers can do in the vineyard of the Lord with Living Water and the amount they should apply. How much, how much living water does one need? One drop of the Lords blood saved mankind.

Listening to some of the rationale being offered in these threads, I can’t help remembering that Jesus chastised the pharisees saying, “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24)

 

[Seraphim73]

Listening to some of the rationale being offered in these threads, I can’t help remembering that Jesus chastised the pharisees saying, “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24)

Let me ask you a question. Is it possible to confect a valid Eucharist using unfermented grape juice?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let me ask you a question. Is it possible to confect a valid Eucharist using unfermented grape juice?

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-grape-wine

And now let me ask you a question: How will you answer the charge laid before you in my signature?

 

[Seraphim73]

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-grape-wine

And now let me ask you a question: How will you answer the charge laid before you in my signature?

I’ve already read that. So it can be valid in certain circumstances correct? So if it is valid would it be ok for the USCCB to mandate grape juice in every parish in the US? And I’m not much for answering charges in signatures.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve already read that. So it can be valid in certain circumstances correct? So if it is valid would it be ok for the USCCB to mandate grape juice in every parish in the US?

If it is valid, then it would equally valid in any parish in the world, yes.

And I’m not much for answering charges in signatures.

Then you’re in luck because I have also posted it in the original thread. See ya there!

 

[Seraphim73]

If it is valid, then it would equally valid in any parish in the world, yes.

So then it would be completely fine to make that the standard practice? To mandate grape juice be used at every Mass?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So then it would be completely fine to make that the standard practice? To mandate grape juice be used at every Mass?

Without studying the specifics, I would say that if the Church found that there was no impediment to the use of unfermented wine, then the Church has the authority to mandate its use.

The strongest argument against the use of unfermented wine, IMO, would be that Jesus did not use unfermented wine at the last supper.

But did Jesus and the apostles baptize by triple immersion? Do you have a verse for this?

Or did you just pass over in silence the work done by scientists who have determined that there simply was not enough water in Jerusalem for 3,000 people to be baptized by triple immersion on the day of Pentecost?

And btw, I think there is a stronger case to be made for immersion than for unfermented wine because the symbolism (note that) of act seems to illustrate the idea of dying to the old man and coming forth from the waters as a new creation in Christ. No one can see any difference between two wines.

However, I might also ask you to cite any writings from the Patristic period which permit the use of unfermented wine. As you know, I have a document from the first century which SPECIFICALLY PERMITS POURING.

I have already shown that the Catholic Church prefers immersion whenever possible, but just as significantly, I have illustrated that while the Orthodox churches follow a better liturgical ritual (than pouring), it is not the BEST.

Consequently, it seems hypocritical to me to say that Catholicism is not following the pattern of the Early Church when YOU AREN’T, EITHER.

 

[Wandile]

So then it would be completely fine to make that the standard practice? To mandate grape juice be used at every Mass?

Only if it doesn’t violate the canons in place at the time of proposed implementation

 

[Seraphim73]

Without studying the specifics, I would say that if the Church found that there was no impediment to the use of unfermented wine, then the Church has the authority to mandate its use.

The strongest argument against the use of unfermented wine, IMO, would be that Jesus did not use unfermented wine at the last supper.

But did Jesus and the apostles baptize by triple immersion? Do you have a verse for this?

Or did you just pass over in silence the work done by scientists who have determined that there simply was not enough water in Jerusalem for 3,000 people to be baptized by triple immersion on the day of Pentecost?

And btw, I think there is a stronger case to be made for immersion than for unfermented wine because the symbolism (note that) of act seems to illustrate the idea of dying to the old man and coming forth from the waters as a new creation in Christ. No one can see any difference between two wines.

However, I might also ask you to cite any writings from the Patristic period which permit the use of unfermented wine. As you know, I have a document from the first century which SPECIFICALLY PERMITS POURING.

I have already shown that the Catholic Church prefers immersion whenever possible, but just as significantly, I have illustrated that while the Orthodox churches follow a better liturgical ritual (than pouring), it is not the BEST.

Consequently, it seems hypocritical to me to say that Catholicism is not following the pattern of the Early Church when YOU AREN’T, EITHER.

Wow, that says everything that needs to be said.