Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES

Expand Messages
  • Rev. John R. Shaw
    Who was it that wrote, Orthodoxy is *my* Doxy. Heterodoxy is somebody else s doxy ...? In Christ Fr. John R. Shaw
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Who was it that wrote, "Orthodoxy is *my* Doxy. Heterodoxy is
      somebody else's doxy"...?
      In Christ
      Fr. John R. Shaw

      > As usual, Father John Shaw has given us an excellent thesis. No one ever
      > says: "You are biased. You agree with me." But, in that he does, he must
      > (surely!) be correct?!
      >
      > Moreover, he is able to quote chapter and verse, as it were.
      >
      > Like Father John, I, too, have received converts both ways. It depends pon
      > the circumstances. Had I been receiving the Roman Catholic turned Muslim, I
      > would have baptized him in the Orthodox Church, because he had renounced
      > Christ (and hence his baptism) by converting to Islam.
      >
      > Father Andrew
      >
      >
      >
      > This mailing list's archives are at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
      >
      >
      >
    • Michael Nikitin
      Before Pater 1 the RC were baptized. It didn t harm the Church. If the form was there the person should have no problem with being chrismated.If the form
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Before Pater 1 the RC were baptized. It didn't harm the Church.
        If the form was there the person should have no problem with being
        chrismated.If the form wasn't there the person should be baptized but then
        that's for the bishop to decide.

        Metr. Philaret baptized.

        Fr. John was the secretary for Vl.Nikon who with the other bishops were
        for passing the resolution to baptize. If only one bishop was against what
        does that say? After all,baptism was in the Russian Church prior to Peter
        1!

        In Russia before the revolution things in the Church were slacking.
        Improprieties were occuring more frequently and God didn't let the
        communists take over Russia if it wasn't warranted.God loves us and he
        brings us to repentence. ROCA was formed, a shining star but things are
        changing in ROCA.

        Let's not change more than what is necessary . If an obvious form is
        missing (i.e.triple immersion),unless the person is sick, let's not be too
        hasty in our decisions but say a prayer before performing so God can help in
        our judgement.

        Things changed quite a bit in the Churches for "the worse"since 1971.
        What was allowed then shouldn't be allowed now because of the
        heresies,especially ECUMENISM.

        Remember Chrismation is the restoration of Grace that is missing!


        From: "Rev. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...>
        Reply-To: orthodox-synod@egroups.com
        To: orthodox-synod@egroups.com
        Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES
        Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500 (CDT)
        MIME-Version: 1.0
        Received: from [208.50.99.201] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
        MHotMailBB5082E80066D82197D3D03263C9676423; Tue Aug 01 13:50:38 2000
        Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Aug 2000
        20:49:33 -0000
        Received: (qmail 7543 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
        Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000
        20:49:26 -0000
        Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw00.execpc.com) (169.207.1.78) by mta1
        with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
        Received: from earth (vrevjrs@... [169.207.16.1]) by
        mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id PAA22402 for <orthodox-synod@egroups.com>;
        Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500
        From sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki Tue Aug 01 13:53:22 2000
        X-eGroups-Return:
        sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki=hotmail.com@...
        In-Reply-To: <8m6t6s+hp9j@...>
        Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10008011520230.2887-100000@...>
        Mailing-List: list orthodox-synod@egroups.com; contact
        orthodox-synod-owner@egroups.com
        Delivered-To: mailing list orthodox-synod@egroups.com
        Precedence: bulk
        List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@egroups.com>

        In the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, and also in the
        Greek Church as well (at the very least in the past), baptism by triple
        immersion was viewed as the desirable norm, but not obligatory. Thus
        where it was physically impossible to immerse someone (e.g. because of
        sickness), they were baptized by "infusion" (pouring). This is referred
        to in an early document called the Didache (Teaching of the Apostles).

        In addition to such cases, there were also areas where it had
        become customary to baptize by pouring instead of immersion--in Serbia,
        for example, babies were often, or even mostly, baptized by pouring.

        The reception of converts by chrismation was specified in various
        cases by the Ecumenical Councils, and was prescribed by the official
        service books of the Russian Church (and still is).

        However, beginning in 1965, after the reception of Priestmonk
        Panteleimon and his monastic house into the Church Abroad, there began a
        kind of "polarization" over this issue.

        Thus when I was received from Anglicanism into Orthodoxy, as a
        teenager, near the end of 1963, there was still no such question.
        Anglicans were supposed to be received by Chrismation, and so I was
        received. As I believe I posted earlier on this list, I subsequently
        finished high school and college as a ROCOR layman, and entered Holy
        Trinity Seminary in Jordanville in the fall of 1968. I made no secret of
        my background and the manner I had been received. However, *no one* at
        Jordanville said anything about "needing to be baptized". I was tonsured
        a reader in 1970 by Vl. Averky of blessed memory, and [as I also posted]
        wrote my dissertation on why the traditional rules for the reception of
        converts (by chrismation) should be *retained*.

        Beginning when I was in college, I had been subjected to urgings
        from various pro-Panteleimon individuals, that I should "still be
        batpized". I consulted with my spiritual father (who is now Bishop Daniel
        of Erie), and he showed me from the Councils and the Fathers that
        Panteleimon was *wrong*. For me that was conclusive.

        However, over the years, HTM continued its work. Panteleimon was
        a clever church politician, and he gained allies in high places. Thus it
        was that at the 1971 Sobor, an attempt was made to make it obligatory to
        baptize all converts. This attempt failed: at least one bishop, Vl.
        Afanassy of blessed memory, firmly and openly declared that he rejected
        this proposal--and that, at least in his diocese, the rubrics in the
        Trebnik, or Book of Needs, for the reception of converts would remain in
        effect.
        I was also at the 1971 Sobor, as the secretary of Vl. Nikon
        (Archbishop of Washington and Florida). On the day taht this all
        occurred, Vladyka explained to me in the evening that although
        Panteleimon had "got his way somewhat", in reality the decision of the
        Sobor had only made chrismation the minimum, and that it was still in the
        domain of the individual bishop how converts were to be received. Vl.
        Nikon himself did not enforce any changes after this "ukase" came out of
        the Sobor (or rather, out of Fr. George Grabbe's office after the Sobor).
        In the summer of 1972, for example, I was the godfather of a convert to
        Orthodoxy who, with Vladyka Nikon's blessing, was received by
        chrismation. I believe it was in 1974 that the late Fr. Stefan Bowbeel
        in New Brunswick received a former Roman Catholic girl by profession of
        faith (according to the Trebnik), I believe with Vladyka's knowledge;
        however, she went to visit Panteleimon's monastery in Brookline and was
        "put out with the catechumens".
        In the Diocese of Chicago and Detroit, Vl. Seraphim of blessed
        memory, and now Vl. Alypy, have given their blessing for converts to be
        received by chrismation--and indeed both have on occasions received such
        converts personally.
        It must be borne in mind that there are only two possibilities:
        either a person is a member of the Orthodox Church, or they are not. If
        they are--then baptizing them after that can only be wrong. If they are
        *not*--then many, many people have been misled into thinking they were
        members of the Church when they were not. Among them would be many
        Saints, including the last Empress of Russia. But more than that, such a
        thing would mean that countless priests and even bishops of the Church
        were in reality not part of the Church at all--and hence those baptized,
        married, and ordained by them were misled. So were countless faithful who
        approached the Holy Mysteries in the Church, falsely believing that the
        robed figures before them were deacons, priests and bishops--and this
        with the full blessing, or with the misleading silence, of the Orthodox
        Church throughout the world, up to the last two generations.
        Thus either we believe and accept what the Church teaches, or we
        believe a handful of individuals whose testimony is self-contradictory.

        This of course is not the same as the question of how it may be
        *wise* to receive a given convert, or what the person who converts may
        themselves desire.

        Thus, although I was chrismated myself, I have received converts
        in both ways.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw
        > 1. A person
        coming from another
        faith should have
        triple
        > immersion/chrismation. IF the immersion from the PREVIOUS "church"
        > WAS, in FACT, triple immersion...(go to 2)
        > 2. the convert can be accepted by chrismation since the chrismation
        > validates the thriple immmersion.
        >
        > IN other words, the form must be there to validate. If one is
        > received
        > by chrismation but has an incomplete baptism, then there is no form
        > to
        > validate? Am I correct in believing so? Please correct me if I am
        > wrong,but this is how I have believed for some time.
        > Raskol
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > This mailing list's archives are at
        http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
        >
        >
        >


        This mailing list's archives are at
        http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod




        ________________________________________________________________________
        Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
      • pwrbarrett@aol.com
        In a message dated 8/1/2000 4:51:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vrevjrs@execpc.com writes:
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/1/2000 4:51:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          vrevjrs@... writes:

          << Thus, although I was chrismated myself, I have received converts
          in both ways. >>

          I believe that converts *should* be baptized. But we all know
          that they are sometimes received in other ways, and having
          been received in other ways, they are Orthodox -- period.

          I think the practice of baptizing those who were never baptized
          -- when they have already been chrismating and have been
          receiving Holy Communion -- is unnecessary and a little odd. But
          I don't have a problem with it if it's understood as merely providing
          the physical aspects of the Mystery, the grace of the Mystery
          having already been received. It probably does much to ease the
          minds of many who have not been baptized. On the other hand,
          if Orthodox Christians are to be made to feel that they are outside
          the Church and must be baptized, that's another thing.

          (I was received into ROCOR by chrismation.)

          Patrick Barrett
        • Rev. John R. Shaw
          I did not say that only one bishop was against . What I said was that one bishop was very vocal in his opposition. I could name several other bishops who were
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 3, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            I did not say that "only one bishop was against". What I said was
            that one bishop was very vocal in his opposition. I could name several
            other bishops who were not in sympathy with the proposal--and who quietly
            preserved the older tradition.

            It is also, as I think is adequately known, not correct to say
            that "in Russia before Peter the Great all converts were baptized". For
            most of its history, the Russian Church accepted converts by various
            ceremonies also. There were, howver, periods in which converts were
            baptized.
            In Christ
            Fr. John R. Shaw>
            > Fr. John was the secretary for Vl.Nikon who with the other bishops were
            > for passing the resolution to baptize. If only one bishop was against what
            > does that say? After all,baptism was in the Russian Church prior to Peter
            > 1!
            >
            > In Russia before the revolution things in the Church were slacking.
            > Improprieties were occuring more frequently and God didn't let the
            > communists take over Russia if it wasn't warranted.God loves us and he
            > brings us to repentence. ROCA was formed, a shining star but things are
            > changing in ROCA.
            >
            > Let's not change more than what is necessary . If an obvious form is
            > missing (i.e.triple immersion),unless the person is sick, let's not be too
            > hasty in our decisions but say a prayer before performing so God can help in
            > our judgement.
            >
            > Things changed quite a bit in the Churches for "the worse"since 1971.
            > What was allowed then shouldn't be allowed now because of the
            > heresies,especially ECUMENISM.
            >
            > Remember Chrismation is the restoration of Grace that is missing!
            >
            >
            > From: "Rev. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...>
            > Reply-To: orthodox-synod@egroups.com
            > To: orthodox-synod@egroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES
            > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500 (CDT)
            > MIME-Version: 1.0
            > Received: from [208.50.99.201] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
            > MHotMailBB5082E80066D82197D3D03263C9676423; Tue Aug 01 13:50:38 2000
            > Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Aug 2000
            > 20:49:33 -0000
            > Received: (qmail 7543 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
            > Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000
            > 20:49:26 -0000
            > Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw00.execpc.com) (169.207.1.78) by mta1
            > with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
            > Received: from earth (vrevjrs@... [169.207.16.1]) by
            > mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id PAA22402 for <orthodox-synod@egroups.com>;
            > Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500
            > >From sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki Tue Aug 01 13:53:22 2000
            > X-eGroups-Return:
            > sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki=hotmail.com@...
            > In-Reply-To: <8m6t6s+hp9j@...>
            > Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10008011520230.2887-100000@...>
            > Mailing-List: list orthodox-synod@egroups.com; contact
            > orthodox-synod-owner@egroups.com
            > Delivered-To: mailing list orthodox-synod@egroups.com
            > Precedence: bulk
            > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@egroups.com>
            >
            > In the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, and also in the
            > Greek Church as well (at the very least in the past), baptism by triple
            > immersion was viewed as the desirable norm, but not obligatory. Thus
            > where it was physically impossible to immerse someone (e.g. because of
            > sickness), they were baptized by "infusion" (pouring). This is referred
            > to in an early document called the Didache (Teaching of the Apostles).
            >
            > In addition to such cases, there were also areas where it had
            > become customary to baptize by pouring instead of immersion--in Serbia,
            > for example, babies were often, or even mostly, baptized by pouring.
            >
            > The reception of converts by chrismation was specified in various
            > cases by the Ecumenical Councils, and was prescribed by the official
            > service books of the Russian Church (and still is).
            >
            > However, beginning in 1965, after the reception of Priestmonk
            > Panteleimon and his monastic house into the Church Abroad, there began a
            > kind of "polarization" over this issue.
            >
            > Thus when I was received from Anglicanism into Orthodoxy, as a
            > teenager, near the end of 1963, there was still no such question.
            > Anglicans were supposed to be received by Chrismation, and so I was
            > received. As I believe I posted earlier on this list, I subsequently
            > finished high school and college as a ROCOR layman, and entered Holy
            > Trinity Seminary in Jordanville in the fall of 1968. I made no secret of
            > my background and the manner I had been received. However, *no one* at
            > Jordanville said anything about "needing to be baptized". I was tonsured
            > a reader in 1970 by Vl. Averky of blessed memory, and [as I also posted]
            > wrote my dissertation on why the traditional rules for the reception of
            > converts (by chrismation) should be *retained*.
            >
            > Beginning when I was in college, I had been subjected to urgings
            > from various pro-Panteleimon individuals, that I should "still be
            > batpized". I consulted with my spiritual father (who is now Bishop Daniel
            > of Erie), and he showed me from the Councils and the Fathers that
            > Panteleimon was *wrong*. For me that was conclusive.
            >
            > However, over the years, HTM continued its work. Panteleimon was
            > a clever church politician, and he gained allies in high places. Thus it
            > was that at the 1971 Sobor, an attempt was made to make it obligatory to
            > baptize all converts. This attempt failed: at least one bishop, Vl.
            > Afanassy of blessed memory, firmly and openly declared that he rejected
            > this proposal--and that, at least in his diocese, the rubrics in the
            > Trebnik, or Book of Needs, for the reception of converts would remain in
            > effect.
            > I was also at the 1971 Sobor, as the secretary of Vl. Nikon
            > (Archbishop of Washington and Florida). On the day taht this all
            > occurred, Vladyka explained to me in the evening that although
            > Panteleimon had "got his way somewhat", in reality the decision of the
            > Sobor had only made chrismation the minimum, and that it was still in the
            > domain of the individual bishop how converts were to be received. Vl.
            > Nikon himself did not enforce any changes after this "ukase" came out of
            > the Sobor (or rather, out of Fr. George Grabbe's office after the Sobor).
            > In the summer of 1972, for example, I was the godfather of a convert to
            > Orthodoxy who, with Vladyka Nikon's blessing, was received by
            > chrismation. I believe it was in 1974 that the late Fr. Stefan Bowbeel
            > in New Brunswick received a former Roman Catholic girl by profession of
            > faith (according to the Trebnik), I believe with Vladyka's knowledge;
            > however, she went to visit Panteleimon's monastery in Brookline and was
            > "put out with the catechumens".
            > In the Diocese of Chicago and Detroit, Vl. Seraphim of blessed
            > memory, and now Vl. Alypy, have given their blessing for converts to be
            > received by chrismation--and indeed both have on occasions received such
            > converts personally.
            > It must be borne in mind that there are only two possibilities:
            > either a person is a member of the Orthodox Church, or they are not. If
            > they are--then baptizing them after that can only be wrong. If they are
            > *not*--then many, many people have been misled into thinking they were
            > members of the Church when they were not. Among them would be many
            > Saints, including the last Empress of Russia. But more than that, such a
            > thing would mean that countless priests and even bishops of the Church
            > were in reality not part of the Church at all--and hence those baptized,
            > married, and ordained by them were misled. So were countless faithful who
            > approached the Holy Mysteries in the Church, falsely believing that the
            > robed figures before them were deacons, priests and bishops--and this
            > with the full blessing, or with the misleading silence, of the Orthodox
            > Church throughout the world, up to the last two generations.
            > Thus either we believe and accept what the Church teaches, or we
            > believe a handful of individuals whose testimony is self-contradictory.
            >
            > This of course is not the same as the question of how it may be
            > *wise* to receive a given convert, or what the person who converts may
            > themselves desire.
            >
            > Thus, although I was chrismated myself, I have received converts
            > in both ways.
            >
            > In Christ
            > Fr. John R. Shaw
            > > 1. A person
            > coming from another
            > faith should have
            > triple
            > > immersion/chrismation. IF the immersion from the PREVIOUS "church"
            > > WAS, in FACT, triple immersion...(go to 2)
            > > 2. the convert can be accepted by chrismation since the chrismation
            > > validates the thriple immmersion.
            > >
            > > IN other words, the form must be there to validate. If one is
            > > received
            > > by chrismation but has an incomplete baptism, then there is no form
            > > to
            > > validate? Am I correct in believing so? Please correct me if I am
            > > wrong,but this is how I have believed for some time.
            > > Raskol
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > This mailing list's archives are at
            > http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > This mailing list's archives are at
            > http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ________________________________________________________________________
            > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > This mailing list's archives are at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
            >
            >
            >
          • Olga Mitrenina
            ... From: Rev. John R. Shaw To: Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE:
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 3, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Rev. John R. Shaw <vrevjrs@...>
              To: <orthodox-synod@egroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:51 PM
              Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES

              > It is also, as I think is adequately known, not correct to say
              > that "in Russia before Peter the Great all converts were baptized". For
              > most of its history, the Russian Church accepted converts by various
              > ceremonies also. There were, howver, periods in which converts were
              > baptized.
              > In Christ
              > Fr. John R. Shaw>

              In Russia the acception of all the heretics through the Baptism became an
              established norm at the Council of 1620, which was abandoned by the Council
              of 1667 which has re-introduced the contemporary Greek norm of the
              Chrismation only. However, even this norm was quietly abrogated under Peter
              the Great, while it was always effective officially.

              My two previous postings to this list were not intended to start any
              discussion on the various possibilities to translate the official documents
              of the World Orthodoxy. Instead, I'd like to present some food to thought to
              all of us when we are listening to the ROCA liberal wing: what is the
              exact position of these liberals in the eyes of their beloved World
              Orthodoxy? What they have to do with their love with no hope to any
              reciprocality?

              Very curious to hear something opposite from the side of the WO officials,
              Yours,
              Olga Mitrenina
            • Rev. John R. Shaw
              If ROCA has a liberal wing , I don t know who belongs to it. There are those of us who learned the faith and practice of Orthodoxy, in ROCOR/ROCA, quite
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 3, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                If ROCA has a "liberal wing", I don't know who belongs to it.
                There are those of us who learned the faith and practice of Orthodoxy, in
                ROCOR/ROCA, quite possibly before Olga was born, or before she had heard
                of ROCOR.
                I am against ecumenism, modernism, and most of what goes by the
                name of "liberal" in our society; however, being opposed to communism or
                Nazism does not mean we have to point to innocent people and call them
                communists or Nazis.
                In Christ
                Fr. John R. Shaw
                > all of us when we are
                listening to the
                ROCA liberal
                wing: what is
                the > exact position of these liberals in the eyes of their beloved World
                > Orthodoxy? What they have to do with their love with no hope to any
                > reciprocality?
                >
                > Very curious to hear something opposite from the side of the WO officials,
                > Yours,
                > Olga Mitrenina
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > This mailing list's archives are at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                >
                >
                >
              • Fr. George Primak
                Dear brethren in Christ, I would like to add some words to the discussion held couple of days ago concerning the correct way to perform the Mystery of The Holy
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 6, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear brethren in Christ,

                  I would like to add some words to the discussion held couple of days ago
                  concerning the correct way to perform the Mystery of The Holy Baptism.
                  First of all, as I understand, the greek word "baptisma" means
                  immersion.
                  Who would like to get more information related to the opinion of the
                  Holy Fathers of the Church about the correct way of the baptism, can
                  find it in the book "Novyj Margarit" pages 350-358, which is possible to
                  get in the Holy Trinity Monastery book store. Also the similar opinion
                  is mentioned in the book "I confess One Baptism" of Fr. George
                  Metallinos, pages 39-40.

                  With love in Christ,

                  Fr. George
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.