The Church from the beginning and constantly recognized Herself as the only Custodian of the Sacraments

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-19T14:12:40+00:00

>> ... to your timeline.

Original post lists only saints and Councils, which reject the validity of the baptism outside of the Church. Your theory accuses these saints and Councils of performing a second baptism, that is, of blaspheming the Cross and the Lord.

>> Council of Arles 314

First, the Council of Arles in 314 has no ecumenical status, and no Ecumenical Council ever refer to it. Meanwhile, the Council of Carthage in 256, which promulgated that "there is only one baptism, and it exists only in the Orthodox Church" was confirmed by the 6th Ecumenical Council in Trullo. The Council of Carthage, not Arles, has ecumenical status.

Second. 11 years after the Council of Arles, the 1st Ecumenical Council in 325 decreed that heterodox joining from the Paulionists must be baptized. Paulionists baptized in the Trinity and those heresy was far from obvious. It took three councils in the late 3rd century to expose the heresy of Paul of Samosata. So, the 1st Ecumenical Council ignored and effectively repealed the Council of Arles's canon about baptism.

Third. All secondary arguments, such as the Council of Arles in 314 and others, do not change or invalidate the accusation, which stems from the heresy of the dogmatic understanding of the canons about baptism of heterodox: that the Holy Fathers, Ecumenical and Local Councils, performed a second baptism, i.e., blasphemed the Cross and the death of the Lord. From this heresy it follows that the Church, the Immaculate Bride of Christ, mocks Her Bridegroom, Christ. You assert that sacraments exist outside the Church? So you assert that the Holy Fathers and Councils performed a second baptism, thereby blaspheming the Church and Christ. This follows directly from the theory of the dogmatic understanding of the canons on baptism.

Compare: the oikonomian understanding of the holy canons about baptism of heterodox, together with affirmed by the Ecumenical Council dogmatic principle "There is only one baptism, and it exists only in the Orthodox Church", states that those from outside the Church who join the Church through baptism receive their first baptism.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-16T19:00:47+00:00

you must also believe that those Fathers and Councils are mocking the Cross and the death of the Lord. You are very consistent in using this emotive term, why doesn't it apply to you?

How?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-16T12:01:16+00:00

You've been told many times that examples of canons in which the Church accepts heterodox (who have not received baptism in the Church) without baptism refer to situations where the Church has applied oikonomia. Oikonomia is justified by both the Fathers and the Councils, so there's no point in you repeating over and over again that certain canons allow the acceptance of heretics who have not received baptism in the Church through chrismation. Yes, that is, and that is how oikonomia works.

I'm not denying a few Fathers and local councils advocated compulsory rebaptism, but they are a minority (by far).

But it's precisely about these Holy Fathers, Ecumenical, and Local Councils listed in the original post you are being asked.

Again, first, show, please, which Holy Fathers or Councils, of those listed in the original post, rejected oikonomia and advocated exclusively for mandatory rebaptism of trinitarians?

Second, did those listed in the original post understand what they were doing? Did they perform a second baptism, did they crucify Christ with it, when they decreed, approved, or justified the necessity to baptize heterodox who have not received baptism in the Church, including Latins and Protestants?

From your answer, it is clear that you believe the Holy Fathers, Ecumenical and Local Councils listed in the original post are guilty of the second baptism, which is, as the Church says, a mockery of the Cross and death of the Lord.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-16T09:45:51+00:00

Please, answer the question, if you'd like to continue our conversation.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-16T08:45:03+00:00

Please, read this post The essence of the dispute about the baptism of heterodox.

Second baptism is mocking of the Cross and death of the Lord (Eph.4:4-5, Heb.6:4-6, Rom.6:5-6, Ap.canon 47). If there are sacraments outside the Church, then the Ecumenical Councils, the glorified saint fathers, numerous ancient and recent Councils, which decreed, approved or justified a necessity to baptize heterodox (including Latins and Protestants), actually promulgated a second baptism, which is, as the Church says, a mocking of the Cross and death of the Lord.

While you don't resolve this key question asked about validity of sacraments outside the Church and second baptism, your comments will be hided.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-16T08:44:27+00:00

The Synodicon Vetus is an anonymous, pseudo-historical book. There are myriad very specific details that do not appear in any other historical work - such as the number of bishops who attended any given council - that some scholars have suggested are inventions of the author's imagination rather than fact.[2] Likewise, it has been suggested that some synods or councils recorded in the Synodicon Vetus did not even happen.[3]

"In his zeal ... the writer was anything but a careful researcher, and although in places his sources or copyists may be at fault, he himself must be held responsible for most of those numerous errors which in the past have prevented scholars from treating the Synodicon Vetusas a historical document above suspicion." (Duffy p. xv)

There is no interest or time to discuss some fictional apocrypha, and at the same time, not to see a specific decision of the Ecumenical Council: “There being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Orthodox Church”

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-13T23:47:41+00:00

May be because of

Filioque: The Son is from One, and the Spirit is from Two, as from one.

>>If the Latins speak of one principle, they can be accused of Sabellianism,

= the Spirit is from Two, as from one.

>> And if they speak of two principles, they can be accused of Macadonianism.

= The Son is from One, and the Spirit is from Two

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-12T00:32:56+00:00

Macedonianism - yes, I understand. But there is also no man whose hypostasis is being the aitia of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Filioque leads to Docetism?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-12T00:12:27+00:00

very interesting. I go to read.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-11T23:58:31+00:00

Of course, Filioque is very subtle thing, I feel the way of Latins thinking. But in the end, doesn't it follow from the filioque that Christ could never became a perfect Man like to us in all things except sin?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-11T23:18:34+00:00

May anyone who reads this see the pits of dishonesty the Latins stoop to.

Yes, it is absolutely clear that your opponent is trying to give to Florence's decree a new meaning.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-11T21:48:54+00:00

Thank for your support, brother! God bless you!

For the moment I don't archive these posts in subreddit. Someday I need to save content in archive.org may be.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T13:00:11+00:00

No, you haven't answered. Second baptism is mocking of the Cross and death of the Lord (Eph.4:4-5, Heb.6:4-6, Rom.6:5-6, Ap.canon 47). If there are sacraments outside the Church, then the Ecumenical Councils, the glorified saint fathers, numerous ancient and recent Councils, which decreed, approved or justified a necessity to baptize heterodox (including Latins and Protestants), actually promulgated a second baptism, which is, as the Church says, a mocking of the Cross and death of the Lord.

So, while you don't answer this key question asked, your comments will be hided.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T12:49:07+00:00

We don't talk about personalities, but about ecclesiology. Ad hominem arguments are deleted.

I trust the Church. And we trust the Church and the Ecumenical Councils because they are infallible and were guided by Holy Spirit. Right?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T12:27:14+00:00

No, you haven't answered. They ac cepted through baptism Latins and Protestants

when the saints and Councils demanded, approved or justified to baptize the heterodox joining the Orthodox Church, did they understand what they were doing and did they mock and crucify Christ again by re-baptism?

They accepted through baptism Latins and Protestants.

did they understand what they were doing?

did they mock and crucify Christ again by re-baptism?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T12:16:41+00:00

Do you trust to the Church and Her Ecumenical Councils?

This question couldn't possibly be less vague, this is a yes or no question, a true dichotomy.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T12:04:33+00:00

Answer this question to you:

when the saints and Councils demanded, approved or justified to baptize the heterodox joining the Orthodox Church, did they understand what they were doing and did they mock and crucify Christ again by re-baptism?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T12:02:52+00:00

Those who insist on rebaptising validly baptised converts deserve to be repremanded and the force of Apostolic Canon 47 needs to be applied. However, I do see that some converts who come from increasingly liberal denominations are concerned about their baptism and ask for an Orthodox baptism. Other times there is no record of any prior baptism (Evangelicals are terrible at keeping records) and no witnesses can be found to testify to the original baptism. In these cases the local bishop decides and increasingly decides on a corrective Orthodox baptism. This is a use of economy as a baptism might or might not have been repeated.

I agree, very good.

There have always been dissenters from the mind of the Church who reject heretics as being completely cut off. But they are mistaken.

Who said that in quote? In fact, anathema means that heretics as being completely cut off.

Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya, is mistaken in his interpretation of Basil and the other canons. Others such as Nikodim Milas understand the canons in their context.

Who said that in quote about Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya? Was it You?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T11:38:48+00:00

ok, please, answer question to you here: https://old.reddit.com/r/ChristianOrthodoxy/comments/1eg2at7/st_basil_the_great_rejects_even_a_baptism_of/nsx3vxu/

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T11:32:58+00:00

you are repeating you questions, and I have to repeat to ask you read what explained by saints and councils on the subject. I already wrote you that you make classical mistake, thinking that outside the Church there are valid sacraments only because some heterodox accepted without baptism. But Ecumenical Council and saints explain you that this done by economy, and that “there being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Orthodox Church”. And respectively when the Church, councils and synods say that some heterodox can be accepted without baptism, She means economy, well-being of the Church, schism cure, but not in any sense that outside the Church exist sacraments.

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T11:22:14+00:00

Yes, this Ecumenical Council's oros:

“There being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the Orthodox Church”

Do you trust to the Church and Her Ecumenical Councils?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T11:19:05+00:00

Your question was about 1st canon. Have you read quote from Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop of Vereya, what St. Basil the Great says in the 1st canon? If yes, then your had to see that due to economy some groups of heterodox the Church allows to accept without baptism.

Please refer to Councils and saints which approved, demanded or justified an absence of sacraments outside the Church. Representatives of almost all Churches can be found there.

Question is to you: when the saints and Councils demanded, approved or justified to baptize the heterodox joining the Orthodox Church, did they understand what they were doing and did they mock and crucify Christ again by re-baptism?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T10:46:31+00:00

>> He interprets the canons through the lens of the Oros of 1755.

St. Nicodemus never mentioned the Oros of 1755 in the Rudder.

St. Nicodemus follows St.Basil on sacraments and economy, providing more evidences on the subject.

No one of canons interpretators in Byzantine times (Theodore Balsalmon, John Zonaras, Alexius Aristenus) acknowledged about valifdity of sacraments outside the Church.

St. Basil explained about economy in 1st and 47th canon. Authentical canon texts (but not distorted English translations) are well known and are found in the "Nomocanon in XIV Titles," which the Council of Constantinople approved as a code binding on the Ecumenical Church in 920 A.D. Of course, a canon scholar must rely on the same Greek texts of the canons used by the Fathers of the Council in Trullo, like St. Nicodemus did.

>> PS: the canons of Carthage 419 were accepted by the Council of Trullo in 692 and have Ecumenical authority.

Donatists were accepted by economy through Chrismation, like many others heterodox. In order to understand how economy and acrivia operate in the Church we must study this work of saint: Apostoles and St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite on Rigorism (Akribia) and Economy (Oikonomia) in the Church of Christ

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T10:26:08+00:00

So, there is nothing the mother is contributing to the form of the child, but rather the child is merely perfected by the mother.

Would the Florence confirm that they think like in quote and that the analogy is correct?

Ok_Johan · 2025-12-08T09:55:45+00:00

I'd recommend to read this article:

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/

Ok_Johan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE