For those interested: there are a monasteries in Romania who don’t even care where you came from, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, you name it, they will baptise you. This is not a Peter Heers stance. This is an Orthodox stance. Parish priests usually are for chrismation while monasteries are for baptism of heterodox.
I converted from Calvinism/Evangelicalism this year during Lent and my personal view, after talking to my priest is 1) you will never regret being baptized into the one Holy Orthodox Church and 2) even my former Trinitarian baptism was seen not as one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. So I was received in by baptism and crismation. Hopefully I don't trigger a debate. God bless!
Why then does the 2nd Ecumenical Council say that Eunomians who baptized in the name of the Trinity but with only one immersion were to be received into the Church by baptism?
@paisios2541 because they did NOT baptize in the name of the Trinity. They were an extreme Arian sect that denied the divinity of Christ and "baptized" people by a single immersion in water, and "into the death of Christ", NOT the Trinitarian formula since they denied the Trinity.
@@Ortho_pilgrim That is true about them baptizing into the death of Christ but the canon itself makes no mention of this, it only refers to them baptizing in one immersion. And where in any Ecumenical Council does it say that groups must not be baptized upon entering the Church if they baptized in any form in the name of the Trinity? St Basil the Great in Canon 47 (and his canons were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils) said that he disagreed with the practice in Rome where they received certain Trinitarian heretics into the Church "by some economy" in his words, and saying that he thinks they should be baptized. St Basil says that it doesn't matter if they invoke the Trinity. The 2nd Ecumenical Council after mentioning the Eunomians then says "and all other heretics we baptize". It makes no conditional statement about the heretics being Trinitarians or whether they baptized in the name of the Trinity. It's really not complicated, this canon is ratified by the Ecumenical Councils, this isn't up for debate: "And let them not say, ‘We have been baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,’ when they suppose- as they do in a manner rivaling Marcion and the rest of the heresies- that God is the maker of things evil. Hence if this please you, then more bishops must come together and thus set forth the canon, so as to afford security to him who performs [rebaptism], and so that he who defends this practice might be considered trustworthy when responding on such matters.”
@@Ortho_pilgrim , this is false, as the book "On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church" thoroughly demonstrates. Canons 7 of the 2nd Council and 95 of Trullo said the Eunomians had to be received by baptism specifically since they practiced baptism with only a single immersion. Sozomen in the 5th century also attested to this that the Eunomians were like Arians but while the Arians were permitted by the canons to be received by chrismation, the Eunomians had to baptized because they baptized in only a single immersion and corrupted the apostolic tradition by departing from baptism in three immersions. At the time of the Great Schism, the Greeks required Latins to be baptized in three immersions who had only been baptized in a single immersion for the same reason, as Patriarch Michael Kerularios and the renowned canonist Theodore Balsamon attested. Patriarch Philaret (Romanov) of Moscow in the 17th century, St. Hermogenes the Patriarch and Wonderworker of Moscow and All Russia before him, the 1755 Council of the Three Patriarchs, St. Nikodemos in his universally adopted commentary on the canons (the Rudder), and all of the Kollyvades Fathers understood very clearly that those who have not received the Apostolic form of baptism in three immersions must be considered as the Eunomians and baptized in three immersions in the Orthodox Church.
@paisios2541 @paisios2541 Have you read all of the Canons that the ECs "ratify?" We're most of us, if not all, uncanonical if we always apply Akrivia vs Oeconomia to the ancient Canons (whose discretion falls within the purview of the Heirarchy and the Synods/Councils). I think you're missing also that St Basil actually acquiesces in his Canons, despite his personal opinion, for the sake of Oeconomia! The ECs ratify his Canons so ratify his ACCEPTANCE of the chrismation practice of his contemporaries which he accepted for Oeconomia at the time - and the 2nd Ecumenical Council chrismates literal Arians - are Latin Catholics more heretical or their Baptisms less "valid" than the Arians who denied the Divinity of our Lord?? Are they to be lumped in with the Pagans, Jews, Muhammadans and Gnostic (your "other heretics" like the abominable borborites) sects? Are you actually asserting the claim that the Eunomian Baptism was rejected solely bc of single immersion and not also because they weren't Trinitarians and used a completely heretical formula that mirrored their heretical theology? Besides, Latin Catholics are not even baptized by single immersion, but by 3, often via aspersion is mentioned as valid as early as the Didache. Edit: the 6th Ecumenical Council also ratified the Council of Carthage 419 whose Canon 57 states: For in coming to faith they [those who were baptized by Donatists, i.e. heretical schismatics] thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: One God, one faith, one baptism, and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. [Those therefore who have been so baptized] having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy penalty of damnation."
@@Ortho_pilgrim , yes, according to all Orthodox councils and canonists the Eunomians had to be received by baptism in three immersions solely because they distorted the form of baptism and did not baptize in three immersions. The Didache has always been interpreted in the Orthodox Church as allowing exceptions to the rule of triple immersion only in the case of emergency where a person may repose and triple immersion is impossible, but deviations from triple immersion are forbidden in every other instance. St. Augustine's writings were not endorsed by the Ecumenical Councils and none of the canons on the reception of heretics were based on his writings. The canon from Carthage 419 that you quote is a mistranslation from the corrupted Latin text. All of this is clearly explained in the book "On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church." It would be good if you could read it.
Question, why do we affirm other churches sacraments if their baptism can impart the gift of the holy spirit? If so are we saying it doesnt matter who baptizes you? For that matter if other trinitarian baptisms are valid why does one need to be baptized in the orthodox church and are the other sacraments of those churches valid too such as the eucharist?
EO theology is so all over the place, please tell me how economia allows aceptances of sacraments outside the church ie Marriage but then gets all distorted and confusing when referring too the other sacraments. It makes no sense to say Sacraments don’t exist outside the specific church(EO)
How does a lost, worldly sinner become saved in your church ? Does he renounce his worldliness and sign a few papers? And after he does that, will he practice religion or experience a personal relationship with his Lord and Savior and become His obedient disciple ? “And this is eternal life; that they may know you the one true God and your Son Jesus……. John 17:3
Hi, I get the impression that you have a protestant perspective. Before baptism and chrismation, the convert goes through a period of repentance and learning about the faith. We believe that we can, and should, pray to God, so yes, a personal relationship is important. Also, we see ourselves as the body of Christ which goes beyond an egocentric view of salvation. You mention obedience as a virtue. As Orthodox we believe that we are saved through faithfulness to God, not only intellectual faith or a one time prayer. That is, being a christian is not only about checking the correct boxes on a true/false theology test, but as you say being God's obedient deciple. Best wishes
@@knuttyse7883 Rather than catholic, protestant , orthodox ; salvation , redemption, regeneration, justification, sanctification and new creation. Old passed away, all things new is only experienced in Jesus and not in religion, not in organization. If He is my Savior, the church is not. Betrothed, expectant, ready and faithful. Or When He is truly Lord, the church is not. Once He is acknowledged as Sovereign King, I am subject, willing slave and my will has been surrendered. Holy Spirit is leading as I obediently follow. Seated together in heavenly places, ruling, standing, unafraid. Narrow road, less traveled, separated, and they loved not their lives unto death. It’s no longer I that lives but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live. I live by faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me. Through John Jesus addresses self-willed men in six of the seven churches of the consequence of any thing less than full surrender and complete obedience. The difference is bride or bridesmaid. Disciple or follower. “If you love me you will obey Me.”
@@douggreenway7283In the Orthodox understanding, the Church is not viewed as a savior separate from Christ. Rather, as St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12:27, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." The Church is the Body of Christ, the communal dimension of our shared relationship with Him. As Ephesians 5:25-27 expresses, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." The sacraments, teachings, and traditions of the Church serve as means by which we experience and deepen our relationship with Jesus. The emphasis in Orthodoxy is on synergy - our cooperation with God's grace. As Philippians 2:12-13 instructs, "Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose." We don't see the Church merely as an organization, but as a living, breathing community of believers who are all journeying towards a deeper union with Christ. In Acts 2:42, we see the early Church devoted "to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." It's through the Church that we receive the sacraments, which are tangible means of God's grace helping us on our journey.
@@Jayce_Alexander He was canonically received and ordained, so he is still sacramentally a priest, but because he is acting outside his proper metropolitan's juridical borders, he is essentially acting as a clericus vagans.
Article: theoriatv.substack.com/p/rebaptism-patristic-consensus-or
Patreon: www.patreon.com/theoriatv
We must be vigorous in our faith, not rigorist!
I'm a Catechumen but my advice is to talk to your priest and figure it out
Renouncing my former heresies? Outstanding.....
For those interested: there are a monasteries in Romania who don’t even care where you came from, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, you name it, they will baptise you.
This is not a Peter Heers stance. This is an Orthodox stance.
Parish priests usually are for chrismation while monasteries are for baptism of heterodox.
I converted from Calvinism/Evangelicalism this year during Lent and my personal view, after talking to my priest is 1) you will never regret being baptized into the one Holy Orthodox Church and 2) even my former Trinitarian baptism was seen not as one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. So I was received in by baptism and crismation. Hopefully I don't trigger a debate. God bless!
💯
Why then does the 2nd Ecumenical Council say that Eunomians who baptized in the name of the Trinity but with only one immersion were to be received into the Church by baptism?
@paisios2541 because they did NOT baptize in the name of the Trinity. They were an extreme Arian sect that denied the divinity of Christ and "baptized" people by a single immersion in water, and "into the death of Christ", NOT the Trinitarian formula since they denied the Trinity.
@@Ortho_pilgrim That is true about them baptizing into the death of Christ but the canon itself makes no mention of this, it only refers to them baptizing in one immersion. And where in any Ecumenical Council does it say that groups must not be baptized upon entering the Church if they baptized in any form in the name of the Trinity? St Basil the Great in Canon 47 (and his canons were ratified by the Ecumenical Councils) said that he disagreed with the practice in Rome where they received certain Trinitarian heretics into the Church "by some economy" in his words, and saying that he thinks they should be baptized. St Basil says that it doesn't matter if they invoke the Trinity. The 2nd Ecumenical Council after mentioning the Eunomians then says "and all other heretics we baptize". It makes no conditional statement about the heretics being Trinitarians or whether they baptized in the name of the Trinity.
It's really not complicated, this canon is ratified by the Ecumenical Councils, this isn't up for debate:
"And let them not say, ‘We have been baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,’ when they suppose- as they do in a manner rivaling Marcion and the rest of the heresies- that God is the maker of things evil. Hence if this please you, then more bishops must come together and thus set forth the canon, so as to afford security to him who performs [rebaptism], and so that he who defends this practice might be considered trustworthy when responding on such matters.”
@@Ortho_pilgrim , this is false, as the book "On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church" thoroughly demonstrates. Canons 7 of the 2nd Council and 95 of Trullo said the Eunomians had to be received by baptism specifically since they practiced baptism with only a single immersion. Sozomen in the 5th century also attested to this that the Eunomians were like Arians but while the Arians were permitted by the canons to be
received by chrismation, the Eunomians had to baptized because they
baptized in only a single immersion and corrupted the apostolic tradition by departing from baptism in three immersions. At the time of the Great Schism, the Greeks required Latins to be baptized in three immersions who had only been baptized in a single immersion for the same reason, as Patriarch Michael Kerularios and the renowned canonist Theodore Balsamon attested. Patriarch Philaret (Romanov) of Moscow in the 17th century, St. Hermogenes the Patriarch and Wonderworker of Moscow and All Russia before him, the 1755 Council of the Three Patriarchs, St. Nikodemos in his universally adopted commentary on the canons (the Rudder), and all of the Kollyvades Fathers understood very clearly that those who have not received the Apostolic form of baptism in three immersions must be considered as the Eunomians and baptized in three immersions in the Orthodox Church.
@paisios2541 @paisios2541 Have you read all of the Canons that the ECs "ratify?" We're most of us, if not all, uncanonical if we always apply Akrivia vs Oeconomia to the ancient Canons (whose discretion falls within the purview of the Heirarchy and the Synods/Councils). I think you're missing also that St Basil actually acquiesces in his Canons, despite his personal opinion, for the sake of Oeconomia! The ECs ratify his Canons so ratify his ACCEPTANCE of the chrismation practice of his contemporaries which he accepted for Oeconomia at the time - and the 2nd Ecumenical Council chrismates literal Arians - are Latin Catholics more heretical or their Baptisms less "valid" than the Arians who denied the Divinity of our Lord?? Are they to be lumped in with the Pagans, Jews, Muhammadans and Gnostic (your "other heretics" like the abominable borborites) sects? Are you actually asserting the claim that the Eunomian Baptism was rejected solely bc of single immersion and not also because they weren't Trinitarians and used a completely heretical formula that mirrored their heretical theology? Besides, Latin Catholics are not even baptized by single immersion, but by 3, often via aspersion is mentioned as valid as early as the Didache.
Edit: the 6th Ecumenical Council also ratified the Council of Carthage 419 whose Canon 57 states: For in coming to faith they [those who were baptized by Donatists, i.e. heretical schismatics] thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: One God, one faith, one baptism, and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. [Those therefore who have been so baptized] having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy penalty of damnation."
@@Ortho_pilgrim , yes, according to all Orthodox councils and canonists the Eunomians had to be received by baptism in three immersions solely because they distorted the form of baptism and did not baptize in three immersions. The Didache has always been interpreted in the Orthodox Church as allowing exceptions to the rule of triple immersion only in the case of emergency where a person may repose and triple immersion is impossible, but deviations from triple immersion are forbidden in every other instance. St. Augustine's writings were not endorsed by the Ecumenical Councils and none of the canons on the reception of heretics were based on his writings. The canon from Carthage 419 that you quote is a mistranslation from the corrupted Latin text. All of this is clearly explained in the book "On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church." It would be good if you could read it.
Question, why do we affirm other churches sacraments if their baptism can impart the gift of the holy spirit? If so are we saying it doesnt matter who baptizes you? For that matter if other trinitarian baptisms are valid why does one need to be baptized in the orthodox church and are the other sacraments of those churches valid too such as the eucharist?
theoriatv.substack.com/p/rebaptism-patristic-consensus-or
EO theology is so all over the place, please tell me how economia allows aceptances of sacraments outside the church ie Marriage but then gets all distorted and confusing when referring too the other sacraments. It makes no sense to say Sacraments don’t exist outside the specific church(EO)
What other traditions have Chrismation henri?
Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox
I signed concession off heresies? To become an Anglican you just have to agree not to use your dinner fork with your salad.
How does a lost, worldly sinner become saved in your church ? Does he renounce his worldliness and sign a few papers?
And after he does that, will he practice religion or experience a personal relationship with his Lord and Savior and become His obedient disciple ?
“And this is eternal life; that they may know you the one true God and your Son Jesus…….
John 17:3
Hi,
I get the impression that you have a protestant perspective.
Before baptism and chrismation, the convert goes through a period of repentance and learning about the faith.
We believe that we can, and should, pray to God, so yes, a personal relationship is important. Also, we see ourselves as the body of Christ which goes beyond an egocentric view of salvation.
You mention obedience as a virtue. As Orthodox we believe that we are saved through faithfulness to God, not only intellectual faith or a one time prayer. That is, being a christian is not only about checking the correct boxes on a true/false theology test, but as you say being God's obedient deciple.
Best wishes
@@knuttyse7883
Rather than catholic, protestant , orthodox ;
salvation , redemption, regeneration, justification, sanctification and new creation. Old passed away, all things new is only experienced in Jesus and not in religion, not in organization. If He is my Savior, the church is not. Betrothed, expectant, ready and faithful. Or When He is truly Lord, the church is not. Once He is acknowledged as Sovereign King, I am subject, willing slave and my will has been surrendered. Holy Spirit is leading as I obediently follow. Seated together in heavenly places, ruling, standing, unafraid. Narrow road, less traveled, separated, and they loved not their lives unto death.
It’s no longer I that lives but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live. I live by faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me. Through John Jesus addresses self-willed men in six of the seven churches of the consequence of any thing less than full surrender and complete obedience. The difference is bride or bridesmaid. Disciple or follower. “If you love me you will obey Me.”
@@douggreenway7283In the Orthodox understanding, the Church is not viewed as a savior separate from Christ. Rather, as St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12:27, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." The Church is the Body of Christ, the communal dimension of our shared relationship with Him. As Ephesians 5:25-27 expresses, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." The sacraments, teachings, and traditions of the Church serve as means by which we experience and deepen our relationship with Jesus.
The emphasis in Orthodoxy is on synergy - our cooperation with God's grace. As Philippians 2:12-13 instructs, "Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose." We don't see the Church merely as an organization, but as a living, breathing community of believers who are all journeying towards a deeper union with Christ. In Acts 2:42, we see the early Church devoted "to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." It's through the Church that we receive the sacraments, which are tangible means of God's grace helping us on our journey.
Jay Dyer and Fr heers vs Ben Cabe and Fr Damick. I take the latters side.
However, is Fr. Heers a Fr. if he has no canonical status in the Orthodox church?
Serious question.
@Jayce_Alexander yes he's a cyber internet father. I think that counts. 😄
@ekklesiagigapanography1854 no he didn't
@@Jayce_Alexander He was canonically received and ordained, so he is still sacramentally a priest, but because he is acting outside his proper metropolitan's juridical borders, he is essentially acting as a clericus vagans.