Opinions on the Corrective Baptism issue?

[ArmyMatt]

Fr Peter is not to blame because in trying to preserve other people's feelings, he had to be indirect. "He didn't do himself any favors" is quoting yourself. Anyone in the USA knows thats a euphemism for "they [insert fastener here] themselves" i.e. it's their fault. You judged someone. As simple as that. And what could Fr Peter other than be vague in respect to the bishops? Nothing. THat's a lose-lose.

except in this issue, he could have just said he can’t get into it right now because of others involved. the issue was when it came up, Fr Peter would post pictures serving with folks. if a bishop asks me who my bishop is, it would look like I am hiding something if I don’t answer that question even if my answer would be that I can’t answer at this time.

when asked, he could have just said it was something he can’t get into at this time. it’s not a lose-lose.

I judged no one. judging an action taken isn’t the same as judging the person.

 

[abacabb3]

Well, if it ever happens to you, you can give it a shot and see how well that works. Hopefully you'll never have to.

Note: I am EO, because someone asked. Being a website I never updated any tags. I converted years ago much thanks to Fr Matt.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, if it ever happens to you, you can give it a shot and see how well that works. Hopefully you'll never have to.

agreed

 

[E.C.]

what if your last legitimate bishop encouraged you to do it? This is vladika luke. so fr peer becomes big before the rug is pulled out from under him, and the rug pulling is his fault?

let's call spade a spade. this is retaliation for covid. secondarily, the jordanville approach to rebaptism and etc is on the conservative side of rocor, so there is internal division over that and fr peter is the public face of it.

It is not retaliation for covid. Clerical rebellion is a mortal sin in Orthodoxy. Sure, if the bishop seem to be preaching outright heresy, than yeah, he should be asked "hey vladika, didn't such-and-such council condemn this?" and go from there.

But covid and the vaccine are not dogmatic issues. Nor are they theological ones in anyway beyond the accusation of the ingredients including by-products from aborted babies - something which most bishop looked into before issuing their guidance (I know for sure that Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA and Bishop Luke of ROCOR did) and they only issued their guidance after verifying that the vaccine ingredients did NOT include stuff from abortions..

Telling people to disobey their bishops is sedition. Telling people to "listen to me" over their bishops is Protestant and possibly neo-Gnostic (I'll defer to rusmeister or Fr Matt on that because they know better than I). Being evasive about who one's bishop is at minimum suspicious. Holding secret meetings and telling the faithful not to inform their own clergy about those meetings is also sedition. All of those are canonical grounds for defrocking no matter if the topic is covid, the vaccine, or the cost of tea in China.

Any canonical Orthodox priest can tell you whom their bishop is not matter what their opinion may be. Even the Jerusalem Vicariate clergy will openly admit that their bishop is, unfortunately, Archbishop Elpidophorous no matter what they may personally think of the guy. But any priest who refuses to disclose whom their bishop is, is frankly suspicious and best to be avoided. Even those priests in the middle of transferring between jurisdictions or between dioceses will say "for now, I'm under Bishop X, but once the paperwork is done I'll be under Bishop Z". Fr Peter Heers can not do any of that and he is doing more harm to ROCOR than the general current societal Russophobia.

 

[gzt]

Though I mean if it's retaliation for the very reverend archpriest Peter Heers' positions on COVID, would that be wrong? Since the hierarchs were right?

EDIT though certainly I admit it seems that it's irregularly done -- ultimately, we have no real insight into what exactly happened here and it's all speculation. See my completely correct comment on this issue: Announcement from Fr. Peter Heers in Response to the Assembly of Bishops' COMMUNIQUÉ

 

[abacabb3]

Though I mean if it's retaliation for the very reverend archpriest Peter Heers' positions on COVID, would that be wrong? Since the hierarchs were right?

EDIT though certainly I admit it seems that it's irregularly done -- ultimately, we have no real insight into what exactly happened here and it's all speculation. See my completely correct comment on this issue: Announcement from Fr. Peter Heers in Response to the Assembly of Bishops' COMMUNIQUÉ

ROCORs first denial of fr peters reception explicitly cited "the vaccine" for the reason, so this is not speculation.

 

[rusmeister]

It is not retaliation for covid. Clerical rebellion is a mortal sin in Orthodoxy. Sure, if the bishop seem to be preaching outright heresy, than yeah, he should be asked "hey vladika, didn't such-and-such council condemn this?" and go from there.

But covid and the vaccine are not dogmatic issues. Nor are they theological ones in anyway beyond the accusation of the ingredients including by-products from aborted babies - something which most bishop looked into before issuing their guidance (I know for sure that Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA and Bishop Luke of ROCOR did) and they only issued their guidance after verifying that the vaccine ingredients did NOT include stuff from abortions..

Telling people to disobey their bishops is sedition. Telling people to "listen to me" over their bishops is Protestant and possibly neo-Gnostic (I'll defer to rusmeister or Fr Matt on that because they know better than I). Being evasive about who one's bishop is at minimum suspicious. Holding secret meetings and telling the faithful not to inform their own clergy about those meetings is also sedition. All of those are canonical grounds for defrocking no matter if the topic is covid, the vaccine, or the cost of tea in China.

Any canonical Orthodox priest can tell you whom their bishop is not matter what their opinion may be. Even the Jerusalem Vicariate clergy will openly admit that their bishop is, unfortunately, Archbishop Elpidophorous no matter what they may personally think of the guy. But any priest who refuses to disclose whom their bishop is, is frankly suspicious and best to be avoided. Even those priests in the middle of transferring between jurisdictions or between dioceses will say "for now, I'm under Bishop X, but once the paperwork is done I'll be under Bishop Z". Fr Peter Heers can not do any of that and he is doing more harm to ROCOR than the general current societal Russophobia.

I don’t believe a bishop has a right to command me to do anything not found in Holy Tradition. Obedience is not a blank check. A bishop can’t order us to wear a blue ribbon to church. He can ask, we can comply, or not. He CAN tell us how we are to prepare for Liturgy and Holy Communion, to treat the church and the things therein with reverence and respect, he can tell us we must love our neighbor and be faithful to our wife, but he can’t tell us we have to wear a mask or get an experimental drug misnamed as a vaccine. He can ask us to consider it. We have, and we reject it. All of the “conspiracy theories” have turned out to be simply true.

I’ll agree with Fr Matt that perhaps Fr Peter should have been more open, but even there, I don't think I know all of the circumstances. I think you are exaggerating what Fr Peter says, and.though he may really have done something I don’t know about that is as bad as you say, I have not seen him do or say it. What I have seen is one of the most faithful teachers of Tradition in our time, a time when all of the things the Left supports get a pass, when publications like the Wheel, Orthodoxy in Monologue, and Fordham are spewing out their heresy of neo-gnosticism and seeking to change the faithful’s understanding of Church teaching and are supported by bishops like AB Elpidophorous. As long as people like Inga are not denounced by our bishops for promoting sodomic relations in the Church, and actually get hosted on AFR, as long as the AB can publicly perform a baptism approving of a child’s being raised by a homosexual couple and not be publicly chastised, complaining about Fr Peter strikes me as absurd.

 

[prodromos]

Though I mean if it's retaliation for the very reverend archpriest Peter Heers' positions on COVID, would that be wrong? Since the hierarchs were right?

Were they?

 

[rusmeister]

Were they?

The faith in “the science” is similar to that which holds dogmatic certainty about the age of the Earth, because one believes in the dogmatic authority, a public official consensus of secular authority as equal to the authority of the consensus of the fathers. Indeed, Miss Leonova informed me that that consensus has no authority and should not be recognized, and that her theological instructor at the seminary denied it and would fail a student who asserted it. That IS neo-gnosticism. (“We know better than the fathers, because we have modern science and education that those poor, ignorant men of the ancient world did not have, and Church teaching should change to reflect what we “know” now.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Indeed, Miss Leonova informed me that that consensus has no authority and should not be recognized, and that her theological instructor at the seminary denied it and would fail a student who asserted it.

she was a theology student? and what professor said this?

 

[rusmeister]

she was a theology student? and what professor said this?

She stated it to me in a public comment on Steve Robinson’s post of July 10th on “Orthobros”. I can’t remember the name of the instuctor she cited, except that it was a priest, but if anyone can find it, welcome! I tried looking for our exchange in the comment section, but there are almost 1000 comments and the Facebook app does not offer a meaningful way to search the comments. It only helps you find the original post.

 

[ArmyMatt]

She stated it to me in a public comment on Steve Robinson’s post of July 10th on “Orthobros”. I can’t remember the name of the instuctor she cited, except that it was a priest, but if anyone can find it, welcome! I tried looking for our exchange in the comment section, but there are almost 1000 comments and the Facebook app does not offer a meaningful way to search the comments. It only helps you find the original post.

thanks, I will have a look.

 

[rusmeister]

thanks, I will have a look.

I’d look quickly. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone here blew a wind her way and the sudden disappearance of her comments resulted.

“Many of the trees are on her side.”
Kudos if you get the quote and its context.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I’d look quickly. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone here blew a wind her way and the sudden disappearance of her comments resulted.

“Many of the trees are on her side.”
Kudos if you get the quote and its context.

we’ll see

 

[ArmyMatt]

it looks she was talking about Fr Paul Terazi, who was a professor at HCHC and SVOTS, just not her professor.

 

[E.C.]

I don’t believe a bishop has a right to command me to do anything not found in Holy Tradition. Obedience is not a blank check. A bishop can’t order us to wear a blue ribbon to church. He can ask, we can comply, or not. He CAN tell us how we are to prepare for Liturgy and Holy Communion, to treat the church and the things therein with reverence and respect, he can tell us we must love our neighbor and be faithful to our wife, but he can’t tell us we have to wear a mask or get an experimental drug misnamed as a vaccine. He can ask us to consider it. We have, and we reject it. All of the “conspiracy theories” have turned out to be simply true.

I’ll agree with Fr Matt that perhaps Fr Peter should have been more open, but even there, I don't think I know all of the circumstances. I think you are exaggerating what Fr Peter says, and.though he may really have done something I don’t know about that is as bad as you say, I have not seen him do or say it. What I have seen is one of the most faithful teachers of Tradition in our time, a time when all of the things the Left supports get a pass, when publications like the Wheel, Orthodoxy in Monologue, and Fordham are spewing out their heresy of neo-gnosticism and seeking to change the faithful’s understanding of Church teaching and are supported by bishops like AB Elpidophorous. As long as people like Inga are not denounced by our bishops for promoting sodomic relations in the Church, and actually get hosted on AFR, as long as the AB can publicly perform a baptism approving of a child’s being raised by a homosexual couple and not be publicly chastised, complaining about Fr Peter strikes me as absurd.

From my understanding, things are different when you're a priest. Yes, as the laity we have the "luxury" to be able to disobey and in North America you simply go to a different parish of a different jurisdiction under a different bishop that suits one's political orientation - a very "Protestant" approach
If you're a priest and the bishop says not to baptize people under XYZ circumstances and to receive via chrismation instead, than that's what you do. The bishop has issued a directive to his representative clergy and they obey it. No, we the laity are not to be blindly obedient and no, bishops can not order things, like wearing blue ribbons in church, but we don't tell the bishop that we know better either especially when it comes to certain theological, pastoral, or doctrinal matters. If Fr Peter Heers wants to be part of ROCOR, like he wrongly claimed he was for a while, than he'd be wise to start by quit telling them that he knows better than them especially when a ROCOR bishop issues guidance that the very thing Fr Heers is pushing is not to be done in his diocese.

I don't know if it has come up in this thread or forum yet, but a week or two ago Archbishop Peter of ROCOR's Midwest Diocese issued a 3-page document. In it, he addresses issues such as Fr Heers running around his diocese and telling people not to say they're attending his meetings. That's subversion, period. Is it true or not? I don't know, I don't live there and I have not intention of listening to unreputable priests. But, that's the word that AB Peter was told, so he responded. I can't find it on their diocesan website itself, because I imagine it was intended for his clergy and not public consumption, but alas here it is: ROCOR Diocese of Chicago on... a lot.


However, I still consider Fr Peter Heers to fit your definition of neo-Gnosticism. He may be a priest and sure he says things that sound okay, but he does not know better than the Fathers nor the Church (for that matter, neither do I). His refusal and inability to be open alone makes him shady, unrreputable, and untrustworthy along with the fact that the only thing that all American jurisdictions have been able to agree on in years is that he isn't kosher and operating without any of their blessings or permission. Again, the vaccine is not a dogmatic issue, yet he has tried to politicize and spiritualize covid and everything covid related. I don't disagree that there is heresy coming from the left, but I don't think an equally conservative reaction is the solution to it. The solution is to fall back onto the Church and Her teachings which are above liberal/conservative political orientations, regain our sanity, and love one another again as our Lord and Savior commanded. We can be in the world, but not of it and both Archbishop Elpidophoros and Fr Heers are failing in that regard by going to the extremes, albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum, but extremes nonetheless. Two wrongs do not make a right here.

 

[ArseniusTheSilent]

the only thing that all American jurisdictions have been able to agree on in years is that he isn't kosher and operating without any of their blessings or permission.

There is hope for reunification yet!

 

[Platina]

What does it even mean to be sneaking around the diocese? Was Fr. Peter sneaking into ROCOR parishes and giving talks or something? Who was letting him in without the rector's knowledge? Is that what's being claimed? Or does Abp. Peter simply mean Fr. Peter met with/spoke with people who live in the geographical area that his diocese covers? If this is the case, given that we have overlapping jurisdictions, he can't really claim Fr. Peter was "sneaking around" HIS diocese. Does Abp. Peter wish to limit who ROCOR parishioners meet with outside of church functions, who they can invite to their homes, have dinner with, etc?

If this charge of sneaking around is to actually mean anything, it would have to mean Fr. Peter snuck into actual churches and held talks without the priest knowing.

 

[rusmeister]

From my understanding, things are different when you're a priest. Yes, as the laity we have the "luxury" to be able to disobey and in North America you simply go to a different parish of a different jurisdiction under a different bishop that suits one's political orientation - a very "Protestant" approach
If you're a priest and the bishop says not to baptize people under XYZ circumstances and to receive via chrismation instead, than that's what you do. The bishop has issued a directive to his representative clergy and they obey it. No, we the laity are not to be blindly obedient and no, bishops can not order things, like wearing blue ribbons in church, but we don't tell the bishop that we know better either especially when it comes to certain theological, pastoral, or doctrinal matters. If Fr Peter Heers wants to be part of ROCOR, like he wrongly claimed he was for a while, than he'd be wise to start by quit telling them that he knows better than them especially when a ROCOR bishop issues guidance that the very thing Fr Heers is pushing is not to be done in his diocese.

I don't know if it has come up in this thread or forum yet, but a week or two ago Archbishop Peter of ROCOR's Midwest Diocese issued a 3-page document. In it, he addresses issues such as Fr Heers running around his diocese and telling people not to say they're attending his meetings. That's subversion, period. Is it true or not? I don't know, I don't live there and I have not intention of listening to unreputable priests. But, that's the word that AB Peter was told, so he responded. I can't find it on their diocesan website itself, because I imagine it was intended for his clergy and not public consumption, but alas here it is: ROCOR Diocese of Chicago on... a lot.


However, I still consider Fr Peter Heers to fit your definition of neo-Gnosticism. He may be a priest and sure he says things that sound okay, but he does not know better than the Fathers nor the Church (for that matter, neither do I). His refusal and inability to be open alone makes him shady, unrreputable, and untrustworthy along with the fact that the only thing that all American jurisdictions have been able to agree on in years is that he isn't kosher and operating without any of their blessings or permission. Again, the vaccine is not a dogmatic issue, yet he has tried to politicize and spiritualize covid and everything covid related. I don't disagree that there is heresy coming from the left, but I don't think an equally conservative reaction is the solution to it. The solution is to fall back onto the Church and Her teachings which are above liberal/conservative political orientations, regain our sanity, and love one another again as our Lord and Savior commanded. We can be in the world, but not of it and both Archbishop Elpidophoros and Fr Heers are failing in that regard by going to the extremes, albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum, but extremes nonetheless. Two wrongs do not make a right here.

Hi, EC,

I happen to agree with you on things like “church shopping”, and that bishops have the authority to authorize cases of acceptance via chrismation. If we have a point of contention, it may be in your words that I agree with, “in certain theological, pastoral, or doctrinal matters”, and that fact that I do not think a general mandate to “vaccinate” or wear a mask fall under such matters, where we might really disagree. Covid really IS political. It was artificially created in a lab in China, wargamed by Bill Gates and Co in Event 201, and released in China a month later. Then lied about by Fauci and Co, who KNEW it had been engineered in the lab THEY had funded, then spun us tales of bats in wet markets.They hounded people who doubted - even I believed and obeyed for a couple of months - only in the end, the “conspiracy theories” turned out to be the unvarnished truth. So Fr Peter isn’t “making” it something that it most certainly is. The people who cannot see that are those who committed themselves to believing the narrative that turned out to be a lie.

I’m experiencing a parallel in my own life here; that of speaking with friends in Russia last year who pushed for the power of the government over its citizens and crushing dissidence, and would never touch me (an American) under the general assumption that the government would always agree with them, do what THEY thought right, and conduct policies that they thought good, right, and true. The idea that their own government could turn against them never crossed their minds.

We’ve already talked about when bishops go bad; it seems that you speak from the general assumption that they don’t and won’t. In your response, you said nothing about what would be right to do if your bishop put out a directive that all must wear a blue ribbon to church, or, as a better analogy, a socialist/BLM symbol, because he happened to believe that these secular movements were good and right.

No bishop has the authority to command things outside of our Tradition. A bishop oversteps his authority if he should tell a priest to wear one of the political symbols I mentioned above, and I don’t believe a priest is obligated to obey him in such things. Sure, an abbot can tell a monk to carry water from the well as an obedience, but if the thing ordered violates our own conscience, as masks and “vaccines” do mine when they are orchestrated by the wealthy for the sake of control, as is the case here, then I can respectfully tell the bishop that I will not comply, and I believe a priest should, too. Like a military officer, a bishop may not give unlawful orders. He may believe it to be lawful, but if my conscience tells me it is unlawful, then I must not obey, even if i have to pay a price for that.

I think you are truly unfair, even prejudiced, against Fr Peter. I have listened to him at length, and am not convinced you have. I have had no direct dealings with him, but he DID “like” a post of mine in which I insisted that none of us know better than the Church in the consensus of the fathers, and his own words indicate that humility regarding himself that you have not seen, but I have. And when you say, “He says things which may sound “OK””, I almost have to give up the question. It’s like saying “Hmm, he said, that we ought to not commit adultery and commit to repentance and loving our enemies. That sounds OK, I guess.” OK?? That IS Orthodox teaching, and it’s not just OK, it is good, right, and true, and as Scripture commands, we should think on these things.

I once had a priest actually unfriend me on FB. I t was a shock, and I was hurt. Later I found out that he had been ordered by his bishop to cut back on FB dealings, and it wasn’t at all personal. I had misjudged his action and his silence. I think Fr Peter is in a tough spot where anything he says is going to make bishops gone bad look worse, and he knows that as a priest, he ought not to do that. As I said, the bishops could easily and quickly resolve his situation, and agree whose authority he is finally under, and they choose not to. And you are not curious as to why they don’t, and interpret his silence in a malevolent manner. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, and I’m not going to sign a blank check supporting him, but I can see that the attacks themselves are unreasonable, because I have taken some time to actually listen to him. The fact is that I have seen the hierarchies of both the Russian and western Churches go bad and have strengthened my mistrust of anything they say that is not directly supported by our Tradition. So again, I will agree that it is wrong to forbid acceptance by chrismation, and I do appreciate that you see evils on the left as well as the right, and I do grant extremes of the right; I live as a refugee now as a direct result of the Russian expression of that. On the whole, I think Fr Peter is, for the most part, walking that middle road that you advocate, and that you just don’t see it because you haven’t really listened to him much.

 

[prodromos]

Hi, EC,

I happen to agree with you on things like “church shopping”, and that bishops have the authority to authorize cases of acceptance via chrismation. If we have a point of contention, it may be in your words that I agree with, “in certain theological, pastoral, or doctrinal matters”, and that fact that I do not think a general mandate to “vaccinate” or wear a mask fall under such matters, where we might really disagree. Covid really IS political. It was artificially created in a lab in China, wargamed by Bill Gates and Co in Event 201, and released in China a month later. Then lied about by Fauci and Co, who KNEW it had been engineered in the lab THEY had funded, then spun us tales of bats in wet markets.They hounded people who doubted - even I believed and obeyed for a couple of months - only in the end, the “conspiracy theories” turned out to be the unvarnished truth. So Fr Peter isn’t “making” it something that it most certainly is. The people who cannot see that are those who committed themselves to believing the narrative that turned out to be a lie.

I’m experiencing a parallel in my own life here; that of speaking with friends in Russia last year who pushed for the power of the government over its citizens and crushing dissidence, and would never touch me (an American) under the general assumption that the government would always agree with them, do what THEY thought right, and conduct policies that they thought good, right, and true. The idea that their own government could turn against them never crossed their minds.

We’ve already talked about when bishops go bad; it seems that you speak from the general assumption that they don’t and won’t. In your response, you said nothing about what would be right to do if your bishop put out a directive that all must wear a blue ribbon to church, or, as a better analogy, a socialist/BLM symbol, because he happened to believe that these secular movements were good and right.

No bishop has the authority to command things outside of our Tradition. A bishop oversteps his authority if he should tell a priest to wear one of the political symbols I mentioned above, and I don’t believe a priest is obligated to obey him in such things. Sure, an abbot can tell a monk to carry water from the well as an obedience, but if the thing ordered violates our own conscience, as masks and “vaccines” do mine when they are orchestrated by the wealthy for the sake of control, as is the case here, then I can respectfully tell the bishop that I will not comply, and I believe a priest should, too. Like a military officer, a bishop may not give unlawful orders. He may believe it to be lawful, but if my conscience tells me it is unlawful, then I must not obey, even if i have to pay a price for that.

I think you are truly unfair, even prejudiced, against Fr Peter. I have listened to him at length, and am not convinced you have. I have had no direct dealings with him, but he DID “like” a post of mine in which I insisted that none of us know better than the Church in the consensus of the fathers, and his own words indicate that humility regarding himself that you have not seen, but I have. And when you say, “He says things which may sound “OK””, I almost have to give up the question. It’s like saying “Hmm, he said, that we ought to not commit adultery and commit to repentance and loving our enemies. That sounds OK, I guess.” OK?? That IS Orthodox teaching, and it’s not just OK, it is good, right, and true, and as Scripture commands, we should think on these things.

I once had a priest actually unfriend me on FB. I t was a shock, and I was hurt. Later I found out that he had been ordered by his bishop to cut back on FB dealings, and it wasn’t at all personal. I had misjudged his action and his silence. I think Fr Peter is in a tough spot where anything he says is going to make bishops gone bad look worse, and he knows that as a priest, he ought not to do that. As I said, the bishops could easily and quickly resolve his situation, and agree whose authority he is finally under, and they choose not to. And you are not curious as to why they don’t, and interpret his silence in a malevolent manner. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, and I’m not going to sign a blank check supporting him, but I can see that the attacks themselves are unreasonable, because I have taken some time to actually listen to him. The fact is that I have seen the hierarchies of both the Russian and western Churches go bad and have strengthened my mistrust of anything they say that is not directly supported by our Tradition. So again, I will agree that it is wrong to forbid acceptance by chrismation, and I do appreciate that you see evils on the left as well as the right, and I do grant extremes of the right; I live as a refugee now as a direct result of the Russian expression of that. On the whole, I think Fr Peter is, for the most part, walking that middle road that you advocate, and that you just don’t see it because you haven’t really listened to him much.

Thank you for the above. It is exactly what I have understood the situation to be but I lack the ability to express adequately. We have had a lot to do with Fr Peter in the past, my wife having translated from Greek into English his 2nd book on Elder Cleopas (The Truth of our Faith Vol. 2) and assisted in the translation of the 1st book (The Truth of our Faith Vol. 1). I have not read his book on the reception of the heterodox but I am curious now to see what, if anything, the controversy is about his book.

For the record, I was raised by my parents in the Anglican Church and was received into the Orthodox Church in Thessaloniki, Greece by chrismation under Metropolitan Panteleimon II Chrysofakis.