Would my church be called Protestant?

[Mary of Bethany]

Hi, Rick

What does that mean, about being recieved by baptism but not by chrismation?

He means . . . . not by Chrismation only . . . Baptism first, then Chrismation.

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, Rick

What does that mean, about being recieved by baptism but not by chrismation?

Oops! that should read "people from BCC who convert to Orthodxy are always received by Baptism and Chrismation, never by Chrismation alone (as is the case with Roman Catholics, for instance)".

This "Brazilian Catholic Church" is an herectic group. To give you an idea, they perform gay marriages!

 

[Rick of Wessex]

He means . . . . not by Chrismation only . . . Baptism first, then Chrismation.

Exactly. Thanks, Mary!

Rick

 

[Zacharias]

Can you tell me what makes our baptism any less valid than Roman Catholic baptism?

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Oops! that should read "people from BCC who convert to Orthodxy are always received by Baptism, never by Chrismation (as is the case with Roman Catholics, for instance)".

This "Brazilian Catholic Church" is an herectic group. To give you an idea, they perform gay marriages!

Ah, I see. They must be both baptised and chrismated to be recieved into the Orthodox Church. This whole gay marriage thing is giving me headache......

 

[Zacharias]

This "Brazilian Catholic Church" is an herectic group. To give you an idea, they perform gay marriages!

We are anti gay marriage or homosexual anything for that matter.

 

[Zacharias]

A Declaration on the Sanctity of Human Life


House of Bishops, February 27, 2002


God alone has absolute dominion over human life, and over the process by which it comes into being. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of fertilization, that is, the union of an ovum and sperm. The respect and protection of ALL innocent human life is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of a moral civilization.


The Church has the duty and the obligation to proclaim to all the earth the sanctity of human life, the dignity of human life, and respect for human life.


Human life begins at conception and ends with natural death.

The deliberate destruction of innocent persons, preborn or born, through all forms of direct abortion, infanticide, euthanasia or any other means is considered to be unethical, immoral, evil and sinful.



Therefore, we affirm that no government has the right to alter the law of God.


Any legislation by any government that demeans or goes contrary to the law of God concerning the sanctity of life is immoral.

We affirm the teaching of Holy Scripture and the tradition of the church throughout the centuries that God is the giver of life and thus human life belongs to Him.



We affirm that the destruction of the human embryo, as an end or a means, such as embryonic stem cell research, is unethical, immoral, intrinsically evil, and sinful.
The artificial creation of human life through cloning is also unethical, immoral, intrinsically evil, and sinful.


We affirm that this declaration on the sanctity of human life, which is rooted in the teaching of the church and the Holy Scriptures, is not in conflict with good and moral science.


A Canon on the Sanctity of Life will be developed for the ICCEC.




Proposed by CEC For Life
The Most Reverend Randolph Sly The Right Reverend Charles Jones
The Right Reverend Craig Bates The Reverend Canon Terry Gensemer

 

[Zacharias]

A Declaration by
The International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church
Concerning the Action of the U.S.Supreme Court ruling on Partial Birth Abortion
in Carhart vs. Stenberg


Presented at the International Convocation of the ICCEC on June 28, 2000


Today the United States Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of a state’s right on the issue of abortion in Carhart vs. Stenberg. Through this act, America has closed the door to allow any state the right to protect the life of the unborn within its boundaries. We, the American people, have just witnessed one of the most uncivilized, unchristian and barbaric acts ever to be carried out by a nation’s supreme legal body. This case is known popularly by the procedure that defines the essence of the case, and is described as Partial Birth Abortion. We, in The International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, believe this new precedent brings us to the point where the question must be asked, are we civilized or are we barbarians?


The majority of Americans oppose abortion and view it as reprehensible. Partial Birth Abortion is a most vicious act of violence against an innocent human being, one who has no ability to defend himself. This act is particularly heinous as the child is just moments from taking his or her first breath.


People of faith should be outraged that our nation has become so barbaric. It is unacceptable to silently reap the good fruit of a booming economy and unprecedented technological advances at such costs as the precious blood of innocent children, both born and unborn.


We, the Church of Jesus Christ, can no longer be silent! We are obligated to proclaim the truth of the gospel which includes the protection of the unborn and sounding an alarm for a nation that is in peril of losing its soul. In God’s Word, His wisdom is given so clearly to us in Proverbs 21:3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.” Many of the leaders of our nation have embraced wholeheartedly the “Holocaust” that plagues our nation, and have placed themselves as icons in the movement to legalize the killing of children through abortion. Such deplorable behavior would have been unthinkable one generation ago and be assured it will not end here. Will their next ruling allow for unwanted children to be legally disposed of after the birth process?


Representing the will of the American people, a bipartisan majority of both Houses of Congress voted to ban partial birth abortion. However, the President, by his veto of that ban, has blocked the will of people and opened the door for this Supreme Court decision. As Patriarch of The International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, I speak for all bishops, priests, clergy, and laity in condemning this action to kill innocent children, the image bearers of God. I pray that we continue to prophetically speak out against this horror as well as continuing to offer the unconditional love of God to a world desperately in need of grace and mercy. May God have mercy on the United States of America!

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Can you tell me what makes our baptism any less valid than Roman Catholic baptism?

By this I understand you mean "why the Orthodox Church in Brazil doesn't accept the Sacraments of the churches founded by Duarte's successors when even the RCC accepts them", right?

Well, in the Orthodox Church, as Matrona said, we don't have the concept of "valid but illicit" sacraments and ordinations.

Sacraments performed by any priest or bishop that is defrocked to lay status and/or excommunicated are automatically null and void, since a priest or bishop cannot perform sacraments outside the Communion of the Church.

Now, as I said, we don't have an official statement regarding whether RC Sacraments as valid or not. But I know that the Orthodox Church has never recognized vagrant groups' sacraments (such as the BCC) as valid because we don't recognize their apostolic succession, partial or otherwise.

"But wait a minute Rick. Protestant churches don't have ordained priests and you Orthodox recognize their baptisms, right?" Well, it's much more coplicated than that!

As our friend Cradle posted once:

Church precision suggests that we do not accept any other baptism other than the Orthodox one as a complete and valid sacrament, very much like we don't let people receive communion in a non-Orthodox church. The precision therefore is that the heterodox should be received into the Church through baptism.

Church economy suggests that individual circumstances and considerations, local practices and traditions, and even historical background apply when receiving someone. In this context, heterodox can be (and often are) received perfectly well through Chrismation alone, provided that they have had some form of previous baptism. Orthodox Chrismation in these circumstances completes and validates the heterodox baptism.

Precision and Economy are both blessed practices in the Church and they have both created saints. In one matter or the other, we are all under some form of economy. Therefore, don't take me wrong : I don't mean to say those who are received by baptism are "class A" Orthodox and the others are "only class B". I'm only giving the facts as I've known them. And of course the fact of the matter is that both receiving by baptism and receiving by plain chrismation (if a previous heterodox baptism has been applied) have a long history in the Church and they both have created saints. Personally, I think it is important that we keep doing both as applicable per situation, very much like it is important we keep exercising Precision and Economy in all matters as applicable per situation.

That is, we apply economy if a group is not herectic. And this is not the case of Duarte's "Brazilian catholic church" or JW's, for instance - that's why converts from BCC or JW are always received by Baptism and Chrismation.

Hope I've made myself clear now. It's the fourth time I've edited this!

Rick

 

[Zacharias]

Thanks for answering my questions.

 

[pnotc]

F4JC -

Just a couple of points:

"our basic beliefs hold in common the essentials of orthodoxy (i.e., "that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all") found in Eastern Orthodoxy, Western Catholicism, and the Reformed traditions"

The Reformed tradition is immediately disqualified by the rule of St Vincent since it was definitely neither taught nor believed by most, much less all, Christians, everywhere and at all times. St Augustine is something of a proto-Calvinist, but his work is something of an aberration in that regard among the Church Fathers and is certainly not normative from an Orthodox perspective. The inclusion of the Reformed tradition immediately calls into question the "orthodoxy" of your church based strictly on what you have presented thus far.

"We believe that these things taken together, with Jesus first, contain the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order delivered to the Church."

I may be misunderstanding this, but this statement seems to imply that there may be new revelations occurring in the present. Am I reading this accurately?

"All practices should find their basis in Holy Scripture"

This, too is a departure from historic Christianity. The Church never required an explicit authorization from the Bible for <i>every</i> practice. This sounds an awful lot like <i>sola scriptura</i> which was never taught or embraced by the Church prior to the Reformation.

On the whole, I would say your church is Protestant regardless of how they see themselves. Mormons view themselves as the legitimate successor to the NT church, which is clearly false. I am not questioning your faith or commitment, or that of your church, only giving an answer to your original question.

 

[Zacharias]

protestant

\Prot"es*tant\, n. [F. protestant, fr. L. protestans, -antis, p. pr. of protestare. See Protest, v.] One who protests; -- originally applied to those who adhered to Luther, and protested against, or made a solemn declaration of dissent from, a decree of the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529, against the Reformers, and appealed to a general council.

 

[Zacharias]

We believe that the New Testament Church had the liturgical, evangelical, and the charismatic. That's what was meant by: "our basic beliefs hold in common the essentials of orthodoxy (i.e., "that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all") found in Eastern Orthodoxy, Western Catholicism, and the Reformed traditions".

 

[Iacobus]

protestant

\Prot"es*tant\, n. [F. protestant, fr. L. protestans, -antis, p. pr. of protestare. See Protest, v.] One who protests; -- originally applied to those who adhered to Luther, and protested against, or made a solemn declaration of dissent from, a decree of the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529, against the Reformers, and appealed to a general council.

Hi F4JC

I think part of the problem is that the Orthodox aren't too concerned with who is protestant, or not protestant. The real question here in TAW is whether or not you are Orthodox, and the answer, of course, is no. Once we answer that question, we're not too concerned with categorizing where else people may be, since its not really our business.

Does that make sense?

James

 

[Zacharias]

Hi F4JC

I think part of the problem is that the Orthodox aren't too concerned with who is protestant, or not protestant. The real question here in TAW is whether or not you are Orthodox, and the answer, of course, is no. Once we answer that question, we're not too concerned with categorizing where else people may be, since its not really our business.

Does that make sense?

James

Yes, thanks, that does make sense.

 

[Oblio]

In addition, once established that a group is not Orthodox, the main two groups (that still exist today) are the Roman Catholics or those that later formed by leaving them for one reason or another, the Protestants.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I used to be in the Anglican Catholic Church, and they don't consider themselves Protestant either, because of their lineage from the ancient British church. But everyone else does.

 

[Michael G]

The Orthodox Church has a totally different view of Apostolic Succession. We don't subscribe to St. Augustine's view--it is not enough to simply be ordained by someone whose spiritual lineage leads back to the apostles. Orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and being in communion with the Universal Church (the Orthodox Church) are all necessary for one to have apostolic succession. So no one outside the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church has apostolic succession.

As is always the case, Matrona is right. There is no licit Apostolic Succession outside of Orthodoxy. Once a Bishop leaves Orthodoxy, he no longer has the Apostolic authority to legally ordain. Rome has maintained unbroken succession but it has done so illicitly because it schismed from Orthodoxy in 1054. The short answer to your question is while your Church may not be technically a product of the reformation (and thus protestant) it is not Orthodox.

 

[Michael G]

Hi F4JC

I think part of the problem is that the Orthodox aren't too concerned with who is protestant, or not protestant. The real question here in TAW is whether or not you are Orthodox, and the answer, of course, is no. Once we answer that question, we're not too concerned with categorizing where else people may be, since its not really our business.

Does that make sense?

James

Very well said, Iacobus!

 

[Photini]

Hi F4JC

I think part of the problem is that the Orthodox aren't too concerned with who is protestant, or not protestant. The real question here in TAW is whether or not you are Orthodox, and the answer, of course, is no. Once we answer that question, we're not too concerned with categorizing where else people may be, since its not really our business.

Does that make sense?

James

Very much,