When I asked my old associate pastor if we would commune the pope at our services and he said "Yes" that was the beginning of my journey out of Protestantism.
Many Roman Catholics do not follow the Novus Ordo Church They follow pre Vatican11. The Church of all time was altered and eventually abandoned in Vatican11. In other words the Roman Rite Church that came down the line was thrown out by Imposters and Apostates and Hirelings . The Roman Catholic Church was attacked terribly by the Nazis and Communists Secret Societies Jews and Gentiles. Many Roman Catholic Jews were murdered. In order to appease the Communists Apostate Bishops and Cardinals decided they could change the Church from within . They called Vatican11. Scripture tells us Shortly after the Jews gain Israel the Perpetual Sacrifice will be removed and the Abomination of Desolation replaced therin only a remnant will remain until end of time. That is the Latin Church. Real Roman Catholic Church is not in Rome today the Counterfeit Novus Ordo Church Masonic Secret Societies are in Rome . The Roman Rite would definitely agree that this bringing in of all forms of Christianity under one Ecumenical Church is wrong.
@@janettedavis6627 The Roman church has been compromised since the latter first millennium and only got worse after it was excommunicated from the rest of the Church in the 11th century. Vatican II was just the final call for its fall. Pre-Vatican II communities aren't really any better.
I've come to know the Orthodox church this year through living in the Balkans. It is the first time I have ever felt God in my life and immediately I realised that the Orthodox church is the only true Christian church. I have so much respect for Orthodoxy. I'm still in my process of learning more about the faith and practices but in my heart I'm already Orthodox. Thanks so much for holding the line as the Orthodox church always has.
“Divers Other Monks” might have been to me if I’d discovered their channel at the wrong time in my journey. I still enjoy the anonymous monk narrator simply because he’s a brilliant historian and knowledgeable of genuine Ye Olde Anglish Orthodox traditions, but, sadly, they are unwilling to admit their bishops made a mistake during the chaos in 1923. For just 13 glorious years, that venerable ancient cathedral was actually Orthodox again since 1066, after Saint Tikhon purchased and refurbished it with the help of several disaffected Anglican bishops who became Western Rite Orthodox, Overbeck’s dream FINALLY baring fruit five years after his death, but then they fell back into schism over the Calendar.😔 As useful as it is for those who otherwise know better, it’s best if novices are steered away from that channel.
I do not understand why this is such an ongoing issue in the minds of so many people. What is the major malfunction? Why wouldn't a new convert want to be baptized? Why are so many armchair theologians making a federal case out of this. I was baptized several times before becoming orthodox. And those baptisms weren't without value - nevertheless I was eager to receive a correct Orthodox baptism! It seems to me that stiff-necked or lazy people want to make an issue out of things that are not. Unfortunate. Anyway, thank you Father God bless. ☦️🏅👑
It is ironically easier for those like you who came through the clearly and totally wrong Lowchurch heresies, but those of us who came from more subtle errors, the desire to honor what was correct to the best of our most pius immediate ancestors’ knowledge between now and the schism is strong. There HAVE been hardliner Orthodox in the past who seemed to have no sympathy for the sincerely pius who were unknowing victims of the Carolingian deception, saying they’re all damned in the West since 1054, so converts demanding that the Western Highchurches were capable of retaining at least partial grace was a compromise theory not so much seeking ecumenism, initially, but far more that it was too horrible to accept that so many souls were lost due to Charlemagne’s greedy legacy. More nuanced theology has been articulated to trust God’s compassionate judgment on individuals without comprising what we KNOW are the canonical abilities in this world, but the fears that initially drove the desire for such compromise have been abused by opportunistic radical ecumenists to try to rationalize away the fundamental boundaries of the church. Why these latter radicals are doing this has absolutely nothing to do with honoring ANY ancestors, quite the opposite.
Baptism is not something to be taken easy. It is a grave sin to be baptised multiple times. So there are those who say that if you weren't baptised as an Orthodox, you should get baptised again. And there are those who say that the practice of the Church was to always accept as valid the baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity (even though some other dogmas may be different). Personally, I would go with the decision taken by the bishop. The bishop is the representative of Christ in his parishes so not submitting to his will shows some schismatics tendencies.
@@Alki777 while I understand the sentiment here, this kind of topic should only be seriously be advised upon by the priesthood, not unnamed people on the internet.
There is no such thing as corrective baptism you only get 1 baptism in your life those baptism before your Orthodox one were just you being dipped in water
Father Bless, Would it be possible for you and Subdeacon Nektarios to do a video on the Book of Job from an Orthodox Perspective. I have tried to find commentaries in it in English but I can only find Russian and Greek ones.
Your video was very interesting for me. I'm Georgian orthodox christian and in Georgia before my country was conquered by russian empire 200 years ego georgian church used to do full baptism for converted armenians. But when we became part of russia and Georgian church was under russian we stopped that and now if non orthodox christian comes to us he/she just gets chrismation as i know. So this always made me wonder why it was so. Now i see even in russian church there never was just one idea about baptism.
i converted from papism and honestly i didn't care how i was received i just wanted to be received/ to become orthodox, im grateful that i was given a corrective baptism before being chrismated into the church though due to my church not having a pool/ something to immerse i had to lean over a baby baptismal font and so it was poured over me which i accept means that im still not ortho in the eyes of a lot of orthotwitter
You’re a part of the Church. Twitter matters not. But sadly, many times the options to baptize adults properly aren’t explored fully. We use a Rubbermaid trough, some places use animal troughs, or large garbage cans. Something is better than nothing when trying to immerse fully. Thanks be to God you’ve come to Orthodoxy. Technically your baptism wasn’t corrective. That is a term used for those already received via an improper application of economia.
Thank you Father for all your videos it has helped us in our journey out of Roman Catholicism and we have talked to Fr. Matthew Penney of Rocor and will be received as catechumens soon. Please pray for my family and I as we go through this journey.
Here is the text : Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!
I was only Chrismated to the Orthodox church of Finland, since here in Finland they do not baptize again if you have been baptized Lutheran as a child... Lord have mercy, this made me so sad and still does, but with council of one hieromonk from the Philippines, I received Chrismation only. Once I get money, I want to travel to Mt. Athos to get baptized.
I am thankful to God that my Priest Baptised me instead of just Chrismation. I have been reading much into the Pre-Synodal praxis of the Russian Church, both at home and abroad, and it presupposed that the Heterodox who could, not that they should, be received by Chrismation were all Sacerdotal. Most American Heterodox are not Sacerdotal, Episcopalians used to be, the Evangelical Lutherans used to be, the Roman Catholics are slipping down the same slope. Most Evangelicals do single Immersion and may or may not be invoking the Trinity. My Godmother was received by Chrismation and it's a point of upsetting to her.
@@vellabella917 Chrismation is part of the Sacraments of Reception. If you are Baptised you get Chrismated at the same time. Baptism is never repeated, this is what the discussion is about.
Thank you father for speaking out, this needs to be said over and over -- the so-called unity of a common baptism (rather than in the Eucharist) is the seed of ecumenist attacks on the Church. I must admit though, I can't see the logic in the Church's position on lay baptism (if I understand it correctly) -- you mentioned the people baptized by their babushka should still go to a priest. What one is told (to my understanding) is if a person is in danger of death, a layman can baptize...if the person dies it is valid. But if the person lives it is invalid. This is rather bizarre. It would seem either the layman has the power to confer baptism or he doesn't. If the lay baptism is efficacious, is not the priest's action a re-baptism (i.e., a grave sin)? If a layman can baptize, then in point of fact, he could go around baptizing anyone, anytime, and the baptisms would be valid -- but illicit (to borrow the Roman Catholic terminology) since it would be a violation of church order for a layman to do is. But if a layman's baptisms are invalid -- well they would be invalid even in an emergency would they not? Again we are talking about baptisms by Orthodox Christians here, not by the heterodox. Anyway, if you can shed some light on this subject, it is much appreciated.
Yes, during inquiry and catechesis (which was three years for me), I learned about the danger of the having “format and intention” apart from being in communion with the One, Holy, Apostolic Church.
I’m only an inquirer, but why not push your priest to Baptize you? I was Baptized in a First Baptists Church, but if I convert I would want to be Baptized Orthodox.
It was likely a condescension due to circumstances. We have to be careful to avoid the Pharisaical mind of the Protestants who tend to want to replace rules with exceptions. A fine example is the thief on the cross argument. They disregard everything before and after that has been said about the path to tue kingdom of heaven, because it’s easier and appealing to our soft and feeble nature.
Amen, father! thank you!! :) And at least that possessed woman was not lazy to do baptism, like some of priests are hehe :D My friend said that I can baptise myself... yaaaoo
Thank you very much Father. I always appreciate the anti-ecumenism content we see online. Would it be possible for you to do a series of videos on how to deal with these issues in the church while still rejecting schism and old calendarists/ True Orthodox types.
I was just recently received into the Church this Pascha. As a former Protestant I was only Chrismated. I wanted to be re-baptised but didn't share this with my Priest strongly enough... What should I do? Should I ask to be Baptised?? If someone could point me in the right direction I'd be thankful. I figure as an Obedience, I followed what my priest said. Thank you.
Hey man, I'm not a priest but following what your priest told u to do was the correct move, don't seek out baptism from another priest if u were to be baptised by another priest while u have already been chrismated it is a slap in the face to the ruling of your bishop who ruled that u would be chrismed, don't worry about getting baptised again. Just my take, hope it's helpful
@@fumples4080 no this isn’t the case. There have been times when people have been Chrismated, we found out later that they never were baptized. Corrective baptism can then be performed. It’s not wrong or disobedience to seek out baptism. Obedience to Christ is first and foremost. We mustn’t offend God first and foremost.
It’s always good to be obedient. However, if this is weighing on you, you can either appeal to your bishop (never a bad idea), or seek to be baptized in a monastery. Holy Trinity in Jordanville NY helps with these matters, as does St. Anthony’s in Arizona. Ultimately do not despair. God desires your salvation even more than you and will assist you (whatever way that might be) as long as you put Him first.
@@johnsambo9379 I don't see how my orginal post makes you believe I think I know more than my priest... I even said explicitly I figured as a form of Obdience I would do what he said... The only reason I've now inquired is because this Gentleman from Living Orthodox , and several others seem to be quoting Church's fathers and the Holy Tradtion mind you, that say converts should be rebaptised. Anyway seems like your comment is a bit rude, and lacking a more nuanced perspective... I am a new convert, that's why I want to know what exactly I should be doing. If my Priest is saying differently than others online I want to understand both there sides of the argument.
But were you baptised as a Protestant in the name of the Holy Trinity? Talk to your local bishop. He has the authority to help you with this issue. It is good to be obedient to your local priest but considering the importance of baptism in our Church, I would have a talk also with my local bishop to be sure that I'm OK.
I was a catholic for me to get married to the man I love had to get baptised as orthodox so I became orthodox but I wasn't emerged 3 times just got poured oil over me and am worried if am baptised proper 😢 because I heard different view's
No that’s definitely something that has to be corrected. It’s not your fault don’t despair, but see if perhaps someone or a monastery would be willing to correct this issue and give you a full proper baptism.
No. It’s still efficacious, but many people have experienced spiritual issues when they’re not baptized. More so the issue lies with the priest if it’s done out of convenience. The point I am arguing is that the baptisms of those outside the Church only have “validity” pertaining to water, triple immersion and the invocation of the Holy Trinity. In other words the form is correct but doesn’t possess the efficacy that comes from having Divine Grace.
Forgive me Father, but how could you explain how Chrismation can be efficacious and there be lingering problems from not have a baptism? What does efficacious mean in that context?
Interesting. I have been dearly struggling between traditional Catholic and orthodox. I don’t want to choose by way of what I am drawn to, by what inspires me, or what “sounds right” I just want God’s Will. Please pray for me. I have met so many sincere and fervent followers of Christ on both sides. Lord Jesus please have mercy on us sinners.
Exactly what the I said. Lay people should often leave the teaching to those who are ordained and thus have the grace to teach, OR they should get a blessing to teach.
Thank you Father for your living words and setting us straight on the error of Ecumenism. I'm Greek Orthodox and was baptized in the Greek Orthodox church in 1959. However l can't continue to attend my Greek Orthodox church as a result of it following the ecumenical Archbishop Elpidophoros. I found a Serbian Orthodox church that does not follow ecumenical agenda, what l want to ask is do l have to be rebaptized. Thank you Father and God love you and your family.
Glad to help. No you don’t need to be baptized as you already were in the Greek Church. It is still canonical and was canonical when you joined the Church.
No. I would simply baptize a Coptic. They don’t have a baptism since they separated from the Church 1600 years ago. It wouldn’t be a “re-baptism”. It would simply be baptism.
Bless Father, The ROCOR anathema against Ecumenism has been changed, in 2006 they revised the anathema to be in more unity with the Moscow Patriarchate, the 1983 anathema says Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema! This was the original as u have stated, But it was revised to "To Theosophists, and the like heretics, to masons, occultists, spiritists, magicians, who have fallen away from the Orthodox Faith and who accept other Heresies to the scandal of our Brethren, to the persecutors of the Church of Christ and to impious apostates who attack the Church of Christ, and to those that have communion with them, and with these heretics or who abet them, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext if brotherly love or the unification of various Christians, ANATHEMA!! As u can see the part about recognising the Heterodox Sacraments is completely axed, this is because the Moscow Patriarchate itself has room and allows for people (such as myself) who believe this common belief that is held by many Bishops not only in Russia, But Greece, Antioch, Alexandria and many other churches. The recognition of Heterodox Sacraments may be an unpopular belief among clergy and laity but many bishops and even Patriarchs believe it themselves (Bartholomew and Kirill, Illia 2nd) If you want to rub it off as many bishops embracing "The Pan Heresy of Ecumenism" then that's fine and God willing that will be corrected, but as of now I don't see any of our chief hierarchs changing their plans with the Ecumenical movement as a whole, Thank You for the concern Father and people in our camp of things are totally aware of what the contemporary saints say about Ecumenism, it was Bartholomew who Canonised Saint Paisios after all and Saint Nikodemos was Canonised by Athenagoras who was the whole chief of Ecumenism, both those EP's are well aware about what they say about issues related to Ecumenism but they don't see it as a big problem, because it's not. If it is false then we will be rid of it soon but for now I assume that since most of the Hierarchy is on board with Ecumenism, it may be that this is something the church will embrace unless we get another St Mark of Ephesus situation which God willing won't occur, Thank you for the warning Father
I think, and this is just my observation, that even though that was axed from the anathema, I dont think ROCOR now believes in heterodox sacraments, because I was baptized into ROCOR. Hopefully 🙏🏽 in the coming years the anathema can be looked at again, because many of our saints of old and modern testify against heterodox sacraments. So it doesn’t really worry me, but yeah that’s about as much as I can add. Cause hopefully in the coming years a universal anathema against ecumenism will be produced, since many blessed ones (uncanonized saints of our time) and even canonized Saints from all over the Church testify against Ecumenism, so our holy fathers have laid the ground work for a future condemnation by the Ecumenical Church. It’s just a matter of time
@@mariorizkallah5383 there are saints who did support it though, Saint Sophrony Sakharov said that it is necessary for Orthodox and Westerners to pray together so that unity can be made manifest, but sure yeah, if there is a Universal condemnation of it then I'm glad the church has finally got over this issue as I hate people going on and on about it as if they are saving lives talking about it, they're not, they are just making themselves look like they are hyper focused on something so insignificant
@@fumples4080 Saints can be wrong on things, im not too familiar, but he seems to be the only one with such an opinion. Whereas from my observation the majority of Modern day Orthodox Saints are against common prayer
@@fumples4080 i agree, we should focus, but some people can either hyper focus on it to the point it becomes destructive, and others can just act like it doesn’t exist or ignore it or even support it, and that becomes also destructive. It’s about a balance
We confess ONE Baptism...the ORTHODOX CATHOLIC Baptism. My problem is can you name a single "official'' bishop who is fighting ecumenism? To be in the WCC, you MUST subscribe to the 'branch theory'.
Elder Philotheos Zervakos who is a saint even though he was not canonised by the heretic Patriarch Bathololmeoos said regarding Ecumenism that we obeyed the bishops there would be no Orthodoxy today
For us Christ is a reality, not just a concept we agree on. The Church and Christ share an intimate relationship. If one is outside the Church, they’re outside of that relationship/family. It’s not that we don’t love you. But I cannot say the heterodox are right or that they have anything in their doctrines that lead to salvation or guarantee it.
@living_orthodox Christ is just as important to us (speaking for myself and my loved ones, not Protestants as a whole). It's disheartening, to say the least, is all I am saying..
@@Taydutt13 try to understand that it’s not about feelings and mental ascents for us. There is an idea of physical participation which further upholds the necessity of the incarnation of Christ. It’s also not intended to be hurtful. It’s the honest truth of how we see the Church. We truly believe in Matthew 16. That Christ established a Church. Not a Bible. That Church Jesus established on the apostles is still here. You can come and be a part of this.
Isn’t Rocor going against it own anathema by being in communion with Moscow, which did not repent of its past before the so called reconciliation , and also commemorating the Moscow patriarch who is an open ecumenist? I often wonder what Metropolitan Philaret would think about the current union. This an honest question that I really need answers too. Thanks
That’s a fair question. As to what Metropolitan Philaret would say, I cannot say. But given ROCOR’s autonomous self-ruling status, and the fact we refuse to send a representative to the world council of churches, I would say no. We haven’t gone against it.
My feeling is the Moscow Patriarch’s “ecumenism” is political rather than doctrinal. It’s for the greater good of Holy Russia that he forms strategic bonds and makes certain public yet ultimately superficial shows of cooperation with various groups and leaders, similar to how Putin always characterizes Russia as multi-national and multi-confessional. Clearly that’s just official rhetoric to appease the religious and ethnic minorities, to keep the peace between populations that historically have had conflict. In this way he unifies them, under the common destiny of the motherland, with his ultimate aim of course being to uphold the values of the majority-because what he really is, is an ultranationalist, who views Russia as Orthodox. That’s what he really wants to preserve, Russian Orthodoxy, but has to strike a balance, play the game so to speak.
@@yonniznaiyu3258 sadly, one cannot serve two masters. To use lying and deceit as means to accomplish something good, will only accomplish evil. It is insincere and lacking in Christ-like love and virtue. One cannot lie (especially as a hierarch) not run the risk of spiritually harming those who believe it within the walls of the Church. There is only one game. To obtain salvation.
@@T_Wozna we elected our first hierarch on our own. The blessing is a formality after the decision was already made. The MP can’t enforce its standards on us, which is why we don’t approve of baptism by pouring. St. Philaret also wouldn’t tolerate schism. As sympathetic as I am towards the moderate old Calendarists, I won’t tolerate schismatic talk or the promotion of such.
Always trust in God's infinite mercy, but always play it as safe as possible. You could easily argue just leaving it up to His mercy, while safe, is disrespectful. Do I believe all heretics (especially those who don't know and simply not everyone is blessed with the intelligence to discern things) and all those outside the church in some other way are destined for damnation? No. The Lord Himself has said the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that is actively denying Truth itself. Does that mean I would EVER tell them "yeah it's okay just do whatever"? Absolutely not. Don't make a mockery of God's mercy or use it to justify even the most menial form of laziness. Respect God and He will love you right back more than you could ever give.
You really hammer on economy in these videos to laypeople Who issues out economy? The church How about you focus your energies inward to those who push economy in the church Do you really think we can do anything about this? What, are we all gonna walk up to our priests and be like "hey father, you're wrong, baptize me properly, I don't care what the bishop said" No clergy are chilling here on RU-vid going "Oh yeah you know what, this Russian Orthodox priest is right. Maybe I will stop or recommend against economy because the presuppositions apparently don't exist anymore" You come across as condescending, especially when every short you put out and every video lately is finger wagging at economy I can't go dragging my family from church to church until I find a priest that has a hard-line approach to economy who agrees that my trinitarian baptism as a Protestant when I was 15 wasn't sacramental
We can do things about this as layman, because I did something about this as a Layman years ago. I was recieved via Chrismation in the OCA from a Romam Catholic background, where the RC practiced espursion on me, not immerssion. When I asked for a corrective baptism, I was denied, so I went to ROCOR and recieved my corrective baptism from them. I've been with ROCOR ever since. There are solutions, don't just roll over and die. Fr. Michael is advocating for baptism, and as a sacrament that is being abused, it deserves to be stood up for. This is the "economy" of the church, to correct overly liberal policies that encourage ecuminism and leave people spiritually disturbed.
And you come across as proud. When one speaks generally but someone takes it personally or as being “condescending” then one must ask, how deep are we looking into things. As a layman you of course can voice your concerns. But to do so in such a way is not Orthodox. You can do something about by talking with your priest, reading the saints and learning what the holy fathers have always taught. If you have time write out a lengthy complaint (which in person you’d likely never do) behind the comfort of your screen-then you have the time to go and dig deeper. Christ disciples found it difficult when He said “if you such much as look with a woman with lust in your heart, then you have committed adultery.” The spiritual life isn’t easy. It’s not about convenience.
@@living_orthodox okay, having read everything possible I can find on the subject from the last 15 centuries, what do you suggest I do with a family of 5 that has grown roots at an Antiochian parish that will not receive me by baptism, despite my sharing of concerns based on lack of modern presupposition? Do I just go wantonly uprooting 3 young children and a wife from this community and switch to a ROCOR parish? This goes beyond "convenience" as you blithely suggest and instead this is about logistics and stability. Ultimately, the responsibility for this lies upon the church, as vulnerable incoming converts shouldn't be burdened or bothered with having to study 15+ centuries of economy application to simply enter the church properly - pretty sure studying economia isn't in any form of catechism I've ever read through
@@Metascetic your right John, the responsibility does lie with the Church and this is why in some of my shorts and videos, I’ve told my brother priests to just baptize. It’s something that clearly is weighing on you. If you want you can find me on discord and we can do a phone call, or email me and we can setup a call that way. I truly would like to offer whatever I can to help you with either understanding this, or reassuring you.
Sergianism is a real problem. However, going off on an angry spout isn’t going to be effective. You also can’t declare anything anthema unless you’re an ecumenical council. The Cypriot Church is canonical
