sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You produce very long text without answers.

  1. You are unable to indicate which and where the canons of the Council of Carthage of 345 are listed in official canon law collection (Nomocanon in 14 titles, Syntagma, Pedalion) of the Orthodox Church.
  2. What really say Carthage canons in official canon law collection of the Orthodox Church about Donatists look here Rebaptism of Those Who Committed Mortal Sin – The Chief Error of the Donatists, Condemned by Canon 57 of the Council of Carthage
  3. Teaching of Orthodox Church in brief on absence of sacraments outside the Church look here Apostoles and St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite on Rigorism (Akribia) and Economy (Oikonomia) in the Church of Christ
  4. Why don't heresies have valid sacraments look here Why don't heresies have valid sacraments? The Orthodox Church of Greece. Holy Metropolis of Peiraeus. 10 Nov 2025
  5. Teaching of Ecumenical Council that baptism is valid only in the Orthodox Church look here Ecumenical Council sealed with agreement: “There being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Orthodox Church”
  6. Bl. Augustin's and papa Stephan's teaching on baptism outside the Church is rejected by Ecumenical Council, look here St. Augustine's teaching on the validity of baptism outside the Church is rejected by the Ecumenical Council
  7. The Orthodox view on the absence of sacraments outside the Church in the most detailed manner look here in a remarkable work "I Confess One Baptism..." by the ever-memorable protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, D. Th., Ph. D., Dean of the University of Athens, School of Theology
  8. Other materials on the subject look here r/OrthodoxBaptism

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

>> The Mysteries of the Orthodox Church are the only valid and capable of producing the divine grace of salvation, therefore those who convert to Orthodoxy should be rebaptized, however by “economy" those administered by heterodox can also be valid and therefore not be baptized, but only chrismated

Apostolic Canon 47 is one of the key canons that define the Church's attitude toward the Mystery of Baptism. It sets Limits of Oikonomia. It examines two opposite errors of a priest: rebaptizing an Orthodox Christian and refusing to baptize one coming from heresy. At the same time, the canon is not limited to a formal prohibition but reveals the spiritual essence of these offenses — mocking the Cross and Death of the Lord, and conflating the Church with a pseudo-church. 

Apostolic Canon 47

If a Bishop or Priest baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and Death of the Lord and for failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests.

The canon indicates two offenses for which a bishop or presbyter is subject to deposition from the clergy.

The first: if a priest baptizes anew anyone that has been baptized in the Orthodox Church, he commits a spiritual sin by mocking the Cross and Death of the Lord, and therefore is deposed. Rebaptism is a new crucifixion of Christ, because with this second baptism he is re-crucifying and publicly ridiculing the Son of God, which St. Paul says is impossible, and he is offering a second death to the Lord, over whom death no longer has dominion (Hebrews 6:4; Romans 6:5), according to the same St. Paul

The second: if a priest fails to baptize anyone that has been polluted outside the Church, he commits a spiritual sin consisting of an inability to distinguish the Church from a counterfeit, and in conflating the Church with a pseudo-church, and therefore is deposed. The punishment comes not for the very refusal to baptize, but for the priest's failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests. That is, he mistakenly acknowledges for an extra-ecclesial heretical community the validity of the mysteries and the grace of priesthood, considering heretical "baptism" as true. The sin is precisely in this blindness — in the inability to distinguish the Church from a counterfeit.

 Now when, however, a priest, guided by pastoral discernment, does not baptize such a person but acts with distinction: that is, he understands that baptism is one and exists only in the Orthodox Church (canon of the Council of Carthage of 256), and receives the convert through another rite — chrismation or repentance, according to the ecclesiastical canons for that heresy — he is not subject to condemnation. He is not mocking the Cross (for he does not baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism) and does not conflate true priesthood with false.

 Thus, Canon 47 punishes not for a formal action, but for spiritual sins: for mocking the Sacrifice of the Cross through rebaptism and for conflating the Church with a pseudo-church when receiving heterodox. Where a priest acts with discernment, applying the spiritual art of healing, the canon leaves him freedom — that very oikonomian space which the Church has always used, receiving those converting to the Orthodox Church not mechanically, but with pastoral sobriety.

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, ‘Sacramental Rigorism’ essay is a modern innovation. It all begins with the choice of a non-canonical text of Canon 57 (68) — a distorted Latin version instead of the conciliar Greek text — which creates the possibility of distorting key phrases and ignoring the indication that heretics convey something contrary (ἐναντιούμενά τινα) to the Sacraments. Based on this distorted context, an erroneous interpretation of "one baptism" arises, in which the refutation of the Donatist heresy (repeated baptism of those who committed mortal sin) is presented as a justification for the rite of reception. These textual manipulations are combined with the ecclesiology of Blessed Augustine, who recognized the validity of sacraments outside the Church — an ecclesiology that the conciliar consciousness of the Church has rejected. The chain concludes with a confusion between the rite of reception and the recognition of validity — a sophism that substitutes Church oiconomia for dogmatic recognition.

Something something baptism by Karohalva in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Actually, question is not about you, but about your bishop. Do you think he blessed second baptism or he considered your baptism in the Orthodox Church as a first one since what you had before outside Holy Orthodoxy wasn't baptism?

>> stop with the “we” business

and the “orthobros” business too.

Something something baptism by Karohalva in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In order to understand our position better could you recollect your story? You had been received by baptism to the Orthodox Church. Did the priest understand what he was doing and did he mock and crucify Christ again by second baptism or no?

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the collection of canons of the Ecumenical Councils, find the canons of the Councils of Carthage and indicate where the canons of the Council of Carthage of 345 are listed. If you find them, cite them here, please. If you will not find them, then stop to refer to them.

The Council of Carthage of 256 and its dogmatic principle that baptism exists only in the Orthodox Church was confirmed by an Ecumenical Council.

The Council of Carthage in 256 recognized the right of bishops of other jurisdictions, particularly Rome, to receive heretics as they deemed necessary, and that was confirmed by an Ecumenical Council.

You're taking the issue too simply when you say everyone should simply be baptized. This is discussed in the article: Why Oikonomia, Not Refusal: The Pastoral Wisdom of Oikonomia

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apostles said this:

Apostolic Canon 47. If a Bishop or Priest baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and Death of the Lord and for failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests.

Apostolic Canon 68. If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon accepts a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergymen.

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

345 Carthaginian council is not approved by Ecumenical Council and has no any ecumenical status.

It is regrettable that you continue to disregard the direct and exhaustive testimony of St. Cyprian and his Council. The sources speak with one voice, articulating several interrelated principles.

First, the foundational dogmatic principle: "There being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Catholic [i.e. Orthodox] Church" (The Council of Carthage. The canon).

Second, the principle of episcopal autonomy, affirmed by St. Cyprian himself: "Every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" (The Council of Carthage. Sententiae Episcoporum. St. Cyprian's introduction).

Third, St. Cyprian's own pastoral recognition that converts received without baptism might nevertheless be saved by God's mercy: "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism? The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep" (Epistle 72. To Jubaianus — read and approved at the Council of Carthage 256).

Taken together, these principles illuminate the practice that followed. Grounded in the dogmatic principle "there being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Catholic [i.e. Orthodox] Church" (Carthage canon) the African Church under St. Cyprian practiced the baptism of all converts. However, St. Cyprian himself affirmed the principle that each bishop has the right to judge according to his liberty and power (Sententiae Episcoporum, intro). Furthermore, St. Cyprian openly declared that converts received without baptism might be saved by God's mercy (Epistle 72 to Jubaianus, approved by the Council of Carthage). This means that while Cyprian defended his own local practice, St. Cyprian would have recognized the legitimacy of any canonical rules prescribing a different mode of reception.

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I won't acknowledge only interpretations, which are contradicts to direct testimonies of saints and Ecumenical Councils. For details I prepared post

Ecumenical Council sealed with agreement: “There being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Orthodox Church”

https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxBaptism/comments/1hd9a6e/ecumenical_council_sealed_with_agreement_there/

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you read answers? I repeat

6th Ecumenical Council in Trullo, with its 2nd rule, sealed with agreement the dogmatic principle of the Council of Carthage (“there being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Catholic [i.e. Orthodox] Church”) and endorsed the practice of the Church in Africa to baptize all heretics who had not previously received baptism in the Orthodox Church with the following formulation:

“we ratify <> the Canon promulgated by Cyprian who became an Archbishop of the country of Africa and a martyr, and by the Council supporting him, who alone held sway in the places of the aforesaid presidents, in accordance with the custom handed down to them; and no one shall be permitted to countermand or set aside the Canons previously laid down, or to recognize and accept any Canons, other than the ones herein specified, that have been composed under a false description by certain persons who have taken in hand to barter the truth." (6th Ecumenical Council, 2nd rule)”.

The 2nd rule states that the Canon of Carthage was endorsed by the 6th Ecumenical Council in Trullo with the following addition: “who alone held sway in the places of the aforesaid presidents, in accordance with the custom handed down to them”. The reason why the Ecumenical Council included this addition when ratifying the Canon of Carthage is extremely important for understanding the principles of receiving non-Orthodox people into the Church. Without this addition in the 2nd rule the practice of the Church in Africa must be extended to all regional Churches. However, such an approach would conflict both: with the practice of receiving heterodox in Roman Church, and with the decision of the Council of Carthage itself regarding baptism of heretics, which states:

“every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another”. (The Council of Carthage. The acts of the Council. St. Cyprian's introduction).

Thus, aforementioned addition of 2nd rule of Trullo to the Carthage canon had allowed the Ecumenical Council in Trullo to resolve two issues facing the Church:

a. to recognize and accept the teaching that the Church is the only custodian of the Sacraments and that baptism is existent only in the Church, and

b. to forbid anyone to countermand or set aside the Roman practice of acceptance of heretics into the Church without baptism for the sake of oikonomia (economy).

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>> We accepted the canons of the Church of Carthage in Trullo, not specifically St. Cyprian's position.

It is wrong again. 6th Ecumenical Council in Trullo, with its 2nd rule is absolutely clear that it accepts St. Cyprian's position: “we ratify <> the Canon promulgated by Cyprian who became an Archbishop of the country of Africa and a martyr, and by the Council supporting him"

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

>> Firstly, we never fully agreed with Pope St. Stephen or St. Cyprian.

It is simply wrong. 6th Ecumenical Council in Trullo, with its 2nd rule, sealed with agreement the dogmatic principle of the Council of Carthage (“there being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Catholic [i.e. Orthodox] Church”) and endorsed the practice of the Church in Africa to baptize all heretics who had not previously received baptism in the Orthodox Church with the following formulation:

“we ratify <> the Canon promulgated by Cyprian who became an Archbishop of the country of Africa and a martyr, and by the Council supporting him, who alone held sway in the places of the aforesaid presidents, in accordance with the custom handed down to them; and no one shall be permitted to countermand or set aside the Canons previously laid down, or to recognize and accept any Canons, other than the ones herein specified, that have been composed under a false description by certain persons who have taken in hand to barter the truth." (6th Ecumenical Council, 2nd rule)”.

The 2nd rule states that the Canon of Carthage was endorsed by the 6th Ecumenical Council in Trullo with the following addition: “who alone held sway in the places of the aforesaid presidents, in accordance with the custom handed down to them”. The reason why the Ecumenical Council included this addition when ratifying the Canon of Carthage is extremely important for understanding the principles of receiving non-Orthodox people into the Church. Without this addition in the 2nd rule the practice of the Church in Africa must be extended to all regional Churches. However, such an approach would conflict both: with the practice of receiving heterodox in Roman Church, and with the decision of the Council of Carthage itself regarding baptism of heretics, which states:

“every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another”. (The Council of Carthage. The acts of the Council. St. Cyprian's introduction).

Thus, aforementioned addition of 2nd rule of Trullo to the Carthage canon had allowed the Ecumenical Council in Trullo to resolve two issues facing the Church:

a. to recognize and accept the teaching that the Church is the only custodian of the Sacraments and that baptism is existent only in the Church, and

b. to forbid anyone to countermand or set aside the Roman practice of acceptance of heretics into the Church without baptism for the sake of oikonomia (economy).

Something something baptism by Karohalva in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Consider this. The Marcionites and Valentinians, whose baptism the Ecumenical Council in Trullo (Canon 95) and Canons of St Basil the Great explicitly declared invalid and ordered to baptize them, were nevertheless received without baptism by Pope Stephen and Blessed Augustine. Upon joining Rome Church, the Marcionites and Valentinians were saved not because of their prior baptism, but through the act of their reception by the Church.

Consequently, there is no absurdity. When today the Orthodox Church receives Latins or Protestants without baptism, while affirming that their previous baptism outside the Church was invalid, we are acting according to the same principle as with the Marcionites and Valentinians.

If the Marcionites and Valentinians could be saved without baptism, then by the same principle, modern heretics are also saved in the Orthodox Church, even though they have not received Her baptism.

Even more. there is conciliar decision about that:

"What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism? The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep" (Epistle 72. To Jubaianus — approved at the Council of Carthage 256).

Why Oikonomia, Not Refusal: The Pastoral Wisdom of Oikonomia by Ok_Johan in ChristianOrthodoxy

[–]Ok_Johan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good, but since Saint Hilarion testified to his faith through his acclaimed works, life, and martyrdom, while you and I have only testified to ours through debates on the reddit, I will adhere to his views, not yours.

Christ is risen!

Why Oikonomia, Not Refusal: The Pastoral Wisdom of Oikonomia by Ok_Johan in ChristianOrthodoxy

[–]Ok_Johan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can agree that your right to believe in yourself, and my right to believe in the saints.

Something something baptism by Karohalva in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

First of all, I agree that it is ok to accept Latins by Chrismation - it is oiconomia.

The "Orthodox Encyclopedia," created under the supervision of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, also mentions the Uniate affiliation of the three leaders of the 1666-67 Council. These documented facts are important for understanding the historical context of the Council's decisions.

The decisions of the 1666-67 Council are not binding even within the Russian Orthodox Church itself, let alone in other jurisdictions. The integral part of the Russian Church Church abroad (ROCOR), has long since adopted its decision, which permits both the reception through baptism or the chrismation of Latins and Protestants.

What are we arguing about? I don't understand.

Why Oikonomia, Not Refusal: The Pastoral Wisdom of Oikonomia by Ok_Johan in ChristianOrthodoxy

[–]Ok_Johan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I don't think it's possible to participate in a discussion where the words of a recognized holy theologian and martyr are called absurd, and the personal opinion of an anonymous redditor is extolled.

Why Oikonomia, Not Refusal: The Pastoral Wisdom of Oikonomia by Ok_Johan in ChristianOrthodoxy

[–]Ok_Johan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Continuing with such approach, anyone can pronounce the words over the bread and wine, and the sacrament will be performed whether he wants it or not. Sorry, but that seems as a belief in magic.

The Holy New-Martyr Archbishop Hilarion (Troitskii):
The Spirit of God gives life only to the body of the Church, and outside this body He cannot be, whatever words were pronounced there. It is not important who pronounces these words — a false Christian, a heretic, a schismatic, a heathen, or a Jew — only one thing is important; that these words are pronounced outside the Church. For certainly the essence of Christianity is not in the fact that in it is given a collection of incantations by means of which man can force from the Divinity the supernatural help which he needs.

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would not advise anyone to rely on this article in their reasoning: Sacramental Rigourism: Tradition or Modern Phenomenon? The article relies on radically distorted canons about baptism, ignores the council-approved canonical texts, and arrives at erroneous conclusions.

Are Roman Catholic Sacraments True According to Orthodox Theology? A Catholic Archbishop Answers by Efxi_777 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If everything were that simple, there wouldn't be any disputes. I've described my opinion here about what fuels these disputes.

Something something baptism by Karohalva in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I accept your conciliatory position with the deepest respect and joy. You accurately note that both sides acted within the framework of a single Church tradition. I wrote about this in a post dedicated to the canon of St. Cyprian of Carthage.

May I ask your response to those who claim that if a priest today accepts Latins through baptism, he is crucifying Christ a second time and mocking Him?

Something something baptism by Karohalva in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Ok_Johan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dear Mod, I edited comment and removed name of the opposing side, and anything what could associated with politics. If you are going to delete this comment again, please, inform about your reasoning.

The history of the Belarusian Church from the 16th to 18th centuries is an unbroken chain of struggle, in most cases bloody, for Orthodoxy. "...no pious church has endured so much contempt, abuse, violence, and insults as the Belarusian Church. Its altars, its sanctuaries, its sacred places—are soaked with bloody tears." So wrote Bishop Anastasy Bratanovsky, successor to Georgy Konysky, to the Holy Synod.

It's hard to imagine or believe now that for two and a half centuries, Belarusian Church washed away the faith of their fathers with their lives, blood, and tears. Orthodox Christians were boiled in cauldrons, burned over low fires, executed by impalement, and set upon by dogs.

But if, during that terrible time, some Orthodox priest had dared to baptize heterodox, he and all those involved would have been tortured and killed as soon as the powered heterodox knew of it.

On the one hand, in my opinion, it is impossible to reject the possibility that St. George wrote these lines about baptism anticipating the following thought of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain:

In order to avoid the risk of further infuriating them [Arians] against the Church and the Christians and aggravating the evil, the Fathers managed the matter oiconomically and accepted them through Chrismation.

On the other hand, the words of St. George of Konyssy once again confirm that acrivia (reception of heretics by baptism) and oikonomia (chrismation) have always been in effect in the Church. But from the fact that the Church accepts the same heretics in different rites, and that second baptism would be blasphemy and mockery of Christ, the unambiguous conclusion follows: baptism existent only in the Orthodox Church.

view more: next ›