Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[josie_L]

The Orthodox don’t re-baptize anyone. As to your second question, Protestants (and Catholics for that matter) certainly hold some heterodox beliefs. Very few if any have once accepted Orthodoxy and then rejected it. That being the case most Orthodox would be hesitant to call them heretics.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Yes, the Orthodox do rebaptize, in fact, they rebaptize Catholics when they are not supposed to. Moreover, according to the traditions/beliefs of the Russian Orthodox Church Catholics are to be received through penance. And in this article I found on an Orthodox site, the author (a Russian monk) speaks of how the Orthodox Church did consider and accept as valid baptisms performed outside of the Church:

We have demonstrated that the Universal Orthodox Church instituted canons which were infused with tolerance towards those who, seeking the salvation of their souls, came into Orthodoxy, leaving behind and rejecting their error. The Holy Church received them. Where possible, the Church accepted their baptism and recognized it as valid, even though it was performed in environs outside the Orthodox Church. The Church taught the need to follow the rules that were built upon the wisdom and strength of Orthodoxy as expressed through the words of the fourth century Fathers (St. Basil the Great and the Fathers of the Laodicean Council)[41] and consistently through the end of the fifteenth century through the words of St. Mark of Ephesus and the four Eastern Patriarchs gathered at a Council in Constantinople in 1484, as well as the authority of the Second and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils.[42]

holy-trinity.org/ecclesio…ption-ch1.html

 

[searn77]

William Webster, who is he? some antiCatholic from the church of England? what do you expect he is going to say about the Cc?

That wasn’t my point. My point is that someone took a quote from an early church father to prove a point, and another person took the same quote to prove the opposite point. Don’t you think context is important in that situation?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Yes, the Orthodox do rebaptize, in fact, they rebaptize Catholics when they are not supposed to. Moreover, according to the traditions/beliefs of the Russian Orthodox Church Catholics are to be received through penance. And in this article I found on an Orthodox site, the author (a Russian monk) speaks of how the Orthodox Church did consider and accept as valid baptisms performed outside of the Church:

No we do not “re-baptize.” The Catholic baptism was never a grace-filled baptism to begin with. Anyone received into the Church without being baptized are done so by divine economia and done so by the discretion of the bishop. Whatever was lacking in the heterodox baptism is completed by receiving Orthodox confession/chrismation and the Eucharist.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I come from a religious cult, that cult used good sounding ideas that seemed to come from the bible if they just added to scripture a little bit. That is why I am carefull when I am faced with a good sounding idea = Pope infalible…but scripture dose not = infalible pope.

Without much elaboration…for example davidic kingdom comparison…however I have not read in the bible where the church would be modeled after a government. Or Christ praying for Peters faith, some how meaning pope benedict is infalible. Basicly Christ nor any apostle ever flat out said anything about papal infalability, which is strange if it is a major doctrine all must believe. And both east and west can quote people saying the exact oposite from eachother.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

excalibur;

As far as unity, my personal experience is that the Roman Catholic Church is far from in unity. There are bishops supporting gays, some bishops for Obama some where against.
Some have protestant looking services and some don’t. And RCIA is a mess, and you know you have a problem when people come out of RCIA not knowing anything…and it dosent suprise anyone. So how can you fault the Orthodox for being not in unity?

Also the scripture used to say peter is the rock…I thought Christ was the rock?

Your personal experience does not define a “disunity” of authority in the Catholic Church. What you are describing are problems in the family members of our household, and require disciplines. This is not a disunity of the Roman Catholic Church, this minority group have liberties to their own personal preferences but I guarantee you, what these in the minority group do in their personal lives does not constitute Roman Catholic Apostolic Written and practiced teaching. The Roman Catholic Church does not dictate ones own political personal preferences or a persons life. She only brings life to these members who are in need of the “physician”. It is not right to pass judgement here.

The disunity you display here, does not display disunity in the Roman Catholic Church, but what constitutes obedience, freedom of ones personal preferences just as long as they do not begin teaching them as “Catholic” when they are not. The “Rock” does not change, its member might change, but the apostolic Teachings and Rock of authority have remained intact just as Jesus promised.

The Catholic Church does not just exist in the U.S, she is world wide in every nation and people. One cannot judge the universal Catholic Church to a few disobedient members in practice. For what these practice may not be what the “Whole” Catholic Church has been teaching these past 2000 years.

The liturgies are an internal problem in the U.S “freedom spirit” this liturgical problem is not a “unifying factor” of doctrine and apostolic teaching in the Catholic Church. There is huge difference from unity in Doctrine and Authority from disciplinary actions within the body of Jesus Christ.

The R.C.I.A in the U.S is another problem you have addressed, again this has nothing to do with the world wide Catholic Bishops who remain in unity “communion” with the Pope. This is not the same disunity you are speaking of, that the Orthodox Church’s have in disunity between their own patriarchs and bishops in authority. You are not comparing apples to oranges here.

 

[searn77]

another thing is the Church is called Catholic and not Orthodox according to the Creed. the Church that is called Catholic is the Church in Rome. this could be a sign for you.

This is a ridiculous thing to say. We actually quite frequently refer to our Church as the " one holy catholic and apostolic Church" just like it is called in the creed. Also, it is quite frequently called the “Orthodox Catholic Church”. Orthodox means right belief/right worship so since our church calls ourself Orthodox and Catholic while your’s just calls itself Catholic, maybe our’s is the only church with right belief/right worship while your’s isn’t. I’m being sarcastic of course. But I just think trying to use the argument that since your Church is commonly referred to as the Catholic Church and our’s isn’t showing that maybe our Church isn’t the Church referenced in the Creed, is a strawman argument.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is a ridiculous thing to say. We actually quite frequently refer to our Church as the " one holy catholic and apostolic Church" just like it is called in the creed. Also, it is quite frequently called the “Orthodox Catholic Church”. Orthodox means right belief/right worship so since our church calls ourself Orthodox and Catholic while your’s just calls itself Catholic, maybe our’s is the only church with right belief/right worship while your’s isn’t. I’m being sarcastic of course. But I just think trying to use the argument that since your Church is commonly referred to as the Catholic Church and our’s isn’t showing that maybe our Church isn’t the Church referenced in the Creed, is a strawman argument.

One could argue that in the beginning when the gentiles entered “The Way” it becomes the Catholic (universal) Church. Technically the Orthodox Church are hebrew/aramaic speaking Jews with a greek understanding. Not Greek speaking Russians. Do you know exactly when the renaming of the Eastern Church’s took on this new name of “Orthodoxy?” Was it in the 1100’s or the 1400’s?

The Credo has always maintained Holy Catholic Apostolic, not Orthodox. For me, “Orthodox” only speaks of the language and culture which practices “Catholicism” from Eastern peoples not that “Orthodoxy” supersedes the 2000 year old Roman Catholic Church from Peter.

 

[josie_L]

No we do not “re-baptize.” The Catholic baptism was never a grace-filled baptism to begin with. Anyone received into the Church without being baptized are done so by divine economia and done so by the discretion of the bishop. Whatever was lacking in the heterodox baptism is completed by receiving Orthodox confession/chrismation and the Eucharist.

Yours in Christ
Joe

According to the Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek, Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, you are:

The Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, published a response, last summer, to a question from a reader about Baptism. The reader called into question the “new practice” of Baptizing “those [already] baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity” when seeking entry into Orthodoxy, rather than receiving them by “profession of faith, or, if they are not confirmed, by Holy Chrismation.” The Illuminator responded to this inquiry by making the following astonishing observations:

1. The Orthodox Church receives “all those baptized in the Holy Trinity and correctly professing faith in the Holy Trinity.” Faithful from the “Oriental Orthodox Churches…are accepted by profession of faith only.”

1. Those coming from confessions which “profess faith in the Holy Trinity but who do not have a true sacrament of confirmation (or Chrismation), as they do not have true (‘valid’) priesthood, are accepted by Chrismation.”

1. “To treat Trinitarian Christians as unbaptized heathens is an injustice committed against Christian baptism, and eventually a blasphemy against God’s Holy Spirit Who is at work at any Christian baptism.”

1. “When we confess faith in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we do not mean by that Orthodox baptism, but any Christian baptism.” The Holy Spirit is not “limited by human canonical boundaries we have established for our convenience. We cannot bind the spirit, and not allow Him to work with all the other Christians, just because some of us so decided.”

(no. 5 deals with the filioque)

1. The Orthodox Church "has never formally rejected the Roman Church as a Christian Church, as some of our fanatics may believe. True, a contemporary rejection of the Roman baptism by the Great Church of Constantinople for pastoral reasons has taken place. But this was corrected and readdressed, as soon as the cause of this rejection disappeared.

"Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the two ‘sister churches’ of old continue to recognize one another’s baptism, as well as the other sacraments celebrated in these churches."

1. The rebaptism by Orthodox of baptized heterodox Christians is inspired by “narrow-mindedness, fanaticism and bigotry.”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenis…mos_reply.aspx

 

[searn77]

One could argue that in the beginning when the gentiles entered “The Way” it becomes the Catholic (universal) Church. Technically the Orthodox Church are hebrew/aramaic speaking Jews with a greek understanding. Not Greek speaking Russians. Do you know exactly when the renaming of the Eastern Church’s took on this new name of “Orthodoxy?” Was it in the 1100’s or the 1400’s?

The Credo has always maintained Holy Catholic Apostolic, not Orthodox. For me, “Orthodox” only speaks of the language and culture which practices “Catholicism” from Eastern peoples not that “Orthodoxy” supersedes the 2000 year old Roman Catholic Church from Peter.

I’m sorry but I’m a little confused on what you are saying. What did you mean when you said, “Technically the Orthodox Church are hebrew/aramaic speaking Jews with a greek understanding. Not Greek speaking Russians.”?

And I have heard somewhere how our Church began to be referred to commonly as the Orthodox Church but I don’t remember where. I won’t type it because I have no idea if it’s true or not but it’ll be something for me to look up later.

And I know that the Creed references the Church as the “one holy catholic and apostolic church”, but what’s your point in saying that the creed doesn’t call the Church orthodox? I know the creed doesn’t reference the Church as orthodox.

I’m sorry but I’m also a little confused when you said, “For me, ‘Orthodox’ only speaks of the language and culture which practices ‘Catholicism’ from Eastern peoples not that ‘Orthodoxy’ supersedes the 2000 year old Roman Catholic Church from Peter.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There was a situation where the Eusebians believed that the Eastern bishops should have the right to depose Athanasius from his post because the West had deposed Novatian unilaterally without any Eastern (name removed by moderator)ut. Read the letter that Pope Julius wrote to the Eusebians regarding their desire to depose Athanasius without his authorization:

It behooved you, beloved, to come hither to Rome, and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this… O beloved!..For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus…And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you. [Apol., 35. PG 25: 305-8]

This isn’t some out of context isolation quote. It has an obvious context and an obvious dose of evidence that the pope was to be notified first, could decree what he wanted and people had to abide by it, and the final say was his. When someone went around him, they were disciplined and made aware of their error. What say you all on this?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m sorry but I’m a little confused on what you are saying. What did you mean when you said, “Technically the Orthodox Church are hebrew/aramaic speaking Jews with a greek understanding. Not Greek speaking Russians.”?

Forgive me, If I may have misplaced your “Orthodox” thinking here? Do you mean by identification that Orthodoxy is the original Apostolic Church? IF so? I indicated "technically; that the true Orthodox community were Jewish converts who spoke Hebrew/ Aramaic in a Greek conquering people society. The original Orthodox Church were of “The Way”, not Greek speaking Russians.

And I have heard somewhere how our Church began to be referred to commonly as the Orthodox

Our Apostolic Faith does not differ, although schismatic Orthodoxy “thinks we do” My language or yours, my culture or yours does not supersede one another’s. I respect the Orthodox title when it applies to the people of Apostolic culture and language from their liturgies. I do not view Orthodoxy as seperated from the Apostolic Catholic Faith. Only those Orthodoxy in schism with authority of Peter’s chair presided by the Popes since Peter’s martyrdom.

 

[josephdaniel29]

According to the Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek, Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, you are:

My friend you are ignorant of Orthodox practice and teaching. The idea of baptizing converts certainly is not “new” and it has been practiced at times by most if not all of the local Churches including the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

I notice you pulled your source from an Orthodox site condemning ecumenism (oh the irony). Did you take the time to read the patristic and canonical justifications for baptizing converts? I am assuming probably not so here it goes.

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[wisdomseeker]

That wasn’t my point. My point is that someone took a quote from an early church father to prove a point, and another person took the same quote to prove the opposite point. Don’t you think context is important in that situation?

yes, and all you have to do is show us the context. that is all.

 

[wisdomseeker]

**

According to the Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek, Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, you are:

Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,260
Religion: Catholic

Re: Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

Quote:
Originally Posted by josephdaniel29
No we do not “re-baptize.” The Catholic baptism was never a grace-filled baptism to begin with. Anyone received into the Church without being baptized are done so by divine economia and done so by the discretion of the bishop. Whatever was lacking in the heterodox baptism is completed by receiving Orthodox confession/chrismation and the Eucharist.

Yours in Christ
Joe

According to the Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek, Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, you are:

Quote:
The Illuminator, an official publication of the Pittsburgh Diocese of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, published a response, last summer, to a question from a reader about Baptism. The reader called into question the “new practice” of Baptizing “those [already] baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity” when seeking entry into Orthodoxy, rather than receiving them by “profession of faith, or, if they are not confirmed, by Holy Chrismation.” The Illuminator responded to this inquiry by making the following astonishing observations:

1. The Orthodox Church receives “all those baptized in the Holy Trinity and correctly professing faith in the Holy Trinity.” Faithful from the “Oriental Orthodox Churches…are accepted by profession of faith only.”
2. Those coming from confessions which “profess faith in the Holy Trinity but who do not have a true sacrament of confirmation (or Chrismation), as they do not have true (‘valid’) priesthood, are accepted by Chrismation.”
3. “To treat Trinitarian Christians as unbaptized heathens is an injustice committed against Christian baptism, and eventually a blasphemy against God’s Holy Spirit Who is at work at any Christian baptism.”
4. “When we confess faith in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we do not mean by that Orthodox baptism, but any Christian baptism.” The Holy Spirit is not “limited by human canonical boundaries we have established for our convenience. We cannot bind the spirit, and not allow Him to work with all the other Christians, just because some of us so decided.”

(no. 5 deals with the filioque)

1. The Orthodox Church "has never formally rejected the Roman Church as a Christian Church, as some of our fanatics may believe. True, a contemporary rejection of the Roman baptism by the Great Church of Constantinople for pastoral reasons has taken place. But this was corrected and readdressed, as soon as the cause of this rejection disappeared.

“Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the two ‘sister churches’ of old continue to recognize one another’s baptism, as well as the other sacraments celebrated in these churches.”

1. The rebaptism by Orthodox of baptized heterodox Christians is inspired by “narrow-mindedness, fanaticism and bigotry.”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenis…mos_reply.aspx **

This only proves how the CC and the pope have been right all along. from the beginning the pope said there is only One Baptism. while some people used Firmillian and ST Cyprian to condemn the holy father, eventually they all come to agree with the holy father. this is called Divine Providence. Amem.

 

[Mickey]

i just wonder how the EO explain what Jesus said to St Peter: feed my lambs, attend my sheep." 3 times. how is St Peter tend God’s sheep today? unless God’s sheep was only in Peter’s time.

Ever wonder why Christ asks three times? St Peter denied Him three times. Christ is restoring St Peter to his apostolic ministry. Also, do a study on the word “love” being used in these verses (Gr).

You will discover why St Peter was grieved when Christ asked him the third time.

 

[Mickey]

You are correct, I have seen it with my own eyes…both Orthodox and Roman Catholics both
Posting quote after endless quote and knowone gets anywhere. Plus aren’t these falible men we end up quoting?

Yes! And I have been guilty of doing the same. I have a whole computer full of quotes----but it would only start “Church Father wars”.

 

[Mickey]

The fact remains that the east has a unity that the west doesn’t have.

Indeed!

 

[Mickey]

Edit: In some areas (Russia I believe) toll houses are viewed as dogma,

Wrong. Stop makng things up.

moreover, if the East has no desire to define everything then why are they so adamant to tell us that we are wrong

It’s not so much telling you about something that is wrong. It’s more about post schism innovations.

 

[Mickey]

Moreover, the pope to which you refer to (Honorius) never taught heresy, he was branded a heretic for not having done his duty to preserve the apostolic tradition,

LOL! He was a heretic! Failure to speak against a particular heresy, can be view as supporting said heresy. Hence, teaching heresy.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ever wonder why Christ asks three times? St Peter denied Him three times. Christ is restoring St Peter to his apostolic ministry. Also, do a study on the word “love” being used in these verses (Gr).

You will discover why St Peter was grieved when Christ asked him the third time.

hi Mickey.

yes. One more reason to understand the role of ST Peter in teh Church. our Lord seems to have a special interest in St Peter. so, how do you explain that our Lord said to St Peter: feed my Lamb, attend My sheep. 3X.

Peace.