Opinions on the Corrective Baptism issue?

[Hermit76]

I agree. No one is really taking the high road. Not sure I would but I wish I would.

While I agree with most of what Fr. Heers says, it seems as though he resists ecclesiastical authority. I see this as a dangerous attitude. It is not dissimilar to a Prostestant view of authority. Plus, any time your authority is moral outrage you run the risk of edging too close to basing everything on reactions. There are very proactive hierarchs in the church that are holding a strong position without such drama.
That being said, it seems that there should be quieter means of responding to Fr. Heers by the bishops. Fr. Heers places everything in the public eye, but the bishops do not need to follow suit. The laity should not see all the correction that happens in these cases. It only gives ammunition to those who wish to tear down the church. It also causes undue division.
Either way it is not an issue that should have an effect on my liturgical or spiritual life. We should be careful as to how much we invest in these squabbles.

 

[abacabb3]

While I agree with most of what Fr. Heers says, it seems as though he resists ecclesiastical authority. I see this as a dangerous attitude. It is not dissimilar to a Prostestant view of authority. Plus, any time your authority is moral outrage you run the risk of edging too close to basing everything on reactions. There are very proactive hierarchs in the church that are holding a strong position without such drama.
That being said, it seems that there should be quieter means of responding to Fr. Heers by the bishops. Fr. Heers places everything in the public eye, but the bishops do not need to follow suit. The laity should not see all the correction that happens in these cases. It only gives ammunition to those who wish to tear down the church. It also causes undue division.
Either way it is not an issue that should have an effect on my liturgical or spiritual life. We should be careful as to how much we invest in these squabbles.

I think we may be falsely judging he has an issue with authority. He had episcopal blessing for the uncut conference last October. He is on good terms with several bishops.

 

[Platina]

Regarding the letter, I'm not seeing it on Orthodox Ethos, but even if it's there, it was certainly posted by OrthoChristian first.

And regarding Fr. Peter resisting episcopal authority - the question is, when did he walk away from his bishop? At what point did he place himself into jurisdictionlessness?

Never. ROCOR dropped him without releasing him elsewhere. Perhaps you want to argue that they were correct in dropping him, but it's simply a fact that he did NOT walk away from his bishop. He did not decide to be bishopless.

The idea that ROCOR rejected him after he was received, but then Abp. Peter expects to be informed any time he's in the midwest is just absurd.

 

[Platina]

Fr. Heers places everything in the public eye

To be fair, Fr. Peter was literally hounded for months or years by clergy and laity alike insisting he publicly reveal all the vagaries of his situation. Fr. Peter was not talking about how badly the MP bishop and then the ROCOR Synod mishandled his situation, but everyone else forced it out into the open. Even things like his canonical release to the MP from Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus he only publicly published when instructed to do so by Met. Seraphim.

 

[abacabb3]

The idea that ROCOR rejected him after he was received, but then Abp. Peter expects to be informed any time he's in the midwest is just absurd.

It's pretty eyebrow raising to say the least. It really does not make sense. Can someone make sense of this? Please?