Opinions on the Corrective Baptism issue?

[abacabb3]

What in his letter implies he's repeating a rumor?

EDIT:
The relevant section again for reference.
View attachment 336009

What in it indicates he has firsthand information? Until that comes out, this is by definition a rumor.

In any event forgive me for any offense I may have caused. I am really not trying to offend you specifically, but demonstrate the point that people should not be vaguely be accused of sneaking around...it's hurtful.

In any event "do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

 

[gzt]

??? The phrasing to me suggests he has first-hand testimony from people who were at such an event. That's not a rumor. If he doesn't have that, I would be worried.

 

[abacabb3]

??? The phrasing to me suggests he has first-hand testimony from people who were at such an event. That's not a rumor. If he doesn't have that, I would be worried.

Sounds like to you, but it doesn't say that. Fr Peter is a public figure. He has an itinerary. Can you kindly point us to what is being referenced? Or do you just not like this public figure so you automatically trust the accusations? I don't like hillary clinton but that doesn't mean I automatically trust in pizzagate stuff...and the people into that had pictures, emails, things that can be construed at least as evidence of a sort. Here we have nothing. Hence, it's a rumor.

 

[gzt]

Having seen plenty of these before, I don't expect a pastoral letter from a bishop to read like a grand jury indictment or a charging document.

EDIT: And thank you for the bonus implication of bad faith on my part.

 

[abacabb3]

Having seen plenty of these before, I don't expect a pastoral letter from a bishop to read like a grand jury indictment or a charging document.

EDIT: And thank you for the bonus implication of bad faith on my part.

Same goes for message board posts, so if a pastoral letter can impute bad faith without evidence, so can some anonymous dude on the internet.

 

[gzt]

Just fyi there's a good chance I won't listen to anything you ever say again.

 

[abacabb3]

Just fyi there's a good chance I won't listen to anything you ever say again.

Just to make it clear, because you do not appear to understand, no one is seriously positing you are "sneaking around."

It'd be so much easier simply to just say that the letter, even if it was correct, is written poorly and in an inflammatory sense--just like my post, despite it being couched in the deliberate sense of making a statement which I am not claiming is true, but to establish the point that even bringing it up is insulting and not good behavior. So, you're getting mad at a point, not an actual statement because I disown the same statement in the same post.

I'm really unsure why you are offended by a disagreement and why you cannot realize Vladika's letter was intended to be offensive, hence my critique.

 

[gzt]

Oh, no, I understood you quite well. I'm not offended.

 

[ArseniusTheSilent]

Why would you expect a bishop to provide full details in a public letter? The way he framed it is totally appropriate for the situation. Your expectation for full disclosure that gets cast into the court of public opinion would simply incense the issue. I completely disagree with your takeaway from this and why you're choosing to draw offense from his letter as written.

 

[abacabb3]

Ironically I have training at work right now and it stated that accusing people publicly of "sneaking around", ad verbatim, is harassment.

Fyi

 

[abacabb3]

Why would you expect a bishop to provide full details in a public letter? The way he framed it is totally appropriate for the situation. Your expectation for full disclosure that gets cast into the court of public opinion would simply incense the issue. I completely disagree with your takeaway from this and why you're choosing to draw offense from his letter as written.

No one is asking for a deposition. A simple "he has taught seminars in several parishes without my blessing" suffices. Simply saying "sneaking around n stuff" really is unprofessional.

 

[rusmeister]

Fr Peter’ situation is entirely the fault of these bishops, who could easily stop footballing him, talk to each other, decide whose diocese he is in, and put an end to the oddity. That they choose to leave him in limbo creates a situation where he can speak publicly, and remain in good standing, because he’s not committing any canonical violation himself, to the best of my knowledge, and so, it is the fault of the bishops. People who want to condemn him while giving the bishops a pass are not entirely honest with themselves. They hate what he says, have a hard time attacking it, and resort to pointing to his limbo status. It’s a form of ad hominem.

What I think most may agree on here is that accepting people by Chrismation may not be forbidden and bishops may allow it, while considering that the heterodox world has changed vastly over the past fifty years, and it may well be time to more carefully examine the application of that economia, as some groups no longer baptise in a way that we can reasonably recognize, and are far removed from what we have held in common with heterodox Christianity, and the bishops ought to show that they are considering that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Fr Peter’ situation is entirely the fault of these bishops, who could easily stop footballing him, talk to each other, decide whose diocese he is in, and put an end to the oddity. That they choose to leave him in limbo creates a situation where he can speak publicly, and remain in good standing, because he’s not committing any canonical violation himself, to the best of my knowledge, and so, it is the fault of the bishops.

to be fair though, and I say this as someone who likes Fr Peter, he didn’t do himself any favors by being vague for a long time concerning his status, and as a priest, you really should not be speaking unless you are under a bishop’s obedience. and I say this with sympathy to his situation and the hope that it gets reconciled (plus, I know folks are accusing him of saying things he didn’t actually say).

What I think most may agree on here is that accepting people by Chrismation may not be forbidden and bishops may allow it, while considering that the heterodox world has changed vastly over the past fifty years, and it may well be time to more carefully examine the application of that economia, as some groups no longer baptise in a way that we can reasonably recognize, and are far removed from what we have held in common with heterodox Christianity, and the bishops ought to show that they are considering that.

Fr Eric Tosi and I talked about that, because of issues with the nonsense of “gender inclusive language.”

 

[Justin-H.S.]

They hate what he says, have a hard time attacking it, and resort to pointing to his limbo status. It’s a form of ad hominem.

 

[abacabb3]

to be fair though, and I say this as someone who likes Fr Peter, he didn’t do himself any favors by being vague for a long time concerning his status, and as a priest, you really should not be speaking unless you are under a bishop’s obedience. and I say this with sympathy to his situation and the hope that it gets reconciled (plus, I know folks are accusing him of saying things he didn’t actually say).


Fr Eric Tosi and I talked about that, because of issues with the nonsense of “gender inclusive language.”

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.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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?

….no….

it was because for a long time when asked about his canonical status, he wouldn’t say who he was under, he would just show himself serving with canonical clergy. that looked shady to a lot of people, even if that wasn’t the intent. he did eventually explain his status, but that was after a while of grumbling that didn’t need to occur.

 

[abacabb3]

….no….

it was because for a long time when asked about his canonical status, he wouldn’t say who he was under, he would just show himself serving with canonical clergy. that looked shady to a lot of people, even if that wasn’t the intent. he did eventually explain his status, but that was after a while of grumbling that didn’t need to occur.

Have you considered that this was in respect to his own enemies so he wouldn't bring light to the fact that their (specifically) reneging on his reception cannot be described in any kind way? Fr Peter and his bishop (Vladika Luke) held out hope until after Metropolitan Hilarion's funeral that the internal situation would be corrected before everything went public.

Unbelievable someone showing respect, because its bad form to criticize or say anything negative about the bishops, is faulted for this. Talk about a lose-lose.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Have you considered that this was in respect to his own enemies so he wouldn't bring light to the fact that their (specifically) reneging on his reception cannot be described in any kind way? Fr Peter and his bishop (Vladika Luke) held out hope until after Metropolitan Hilarion's funeral that the internal situation would be corrected before everything went public.

sure, I didn’t say it was shady, I said it looked that way. plus, it went on for a while.

Unbelievable someone showing respect, because its bad form to criticize or say anything negative about the bishops, is faulted for this. Talk about a lose-lose.

no one said this.

 

[abacabb3]

sure, I didn’t say it was shady, I said it looked that way. plus, it went on for a while.


no one said this.

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.

 

[ArseniusTheSilent]

What exactly is your angle and interest here? You don't show yourself as Orthodox in your profile. What denomination are you?