Originally posted by Dogface
If that is your problem, then let us take a look at the acts of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They are far more rigorist than Moscow, going so far as to insist upon baptism of all converts in some dioceses.
So, if the rigorism of Moscow is because it is a "creature of Stalin", then is the rigorism of ROCOR (aka ROCA) because it rejected Stalin and the USSR?
No, that's not what I mean. I am very uncomfortable in having a fundamentally compromised church (e.g., the Russian Orthodox Church within Russia) present itself as speaking for Orthodoxy. Basing your arguments upon the point of view of that church is guaranteed to raise quite a few red flags until such a time as the Russian Orthodox church within Russia comes to terms with its actions during the terror.
Not being Russian myself, I don't answer to the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Outside Russia or any other Russian hierarchy, and don't have any desire to do so. Russian Orthodoxy has always struck me as far to focused on form and far to uninterested in substance. It also strikes all of us who aren't Russian as far to convinced of its right to speak for all of Orthodoxy. While I certainly recognize that the Russians, being the most populous Orthodox nation, will always have a somewhat disproportionate weight within intra-Orthodox debates and discussions, you aren't Orthodoxy, and you shouldn't presume to speak for Orthodoxy.
The Russian approach has always been disturbingly heavy handed which, IMHO is *not* the right way to approach worship of God. For example, you switched to the modern way of making the Sign of the Cross, with three fingers, representing the Trinity. I've got no problems with that -- I make the Sign of the Cross with three fingers too, but why on earth did you make it a capital crime to continue making the Sign of the Cross in the archaic manner, with two fingers, representing the Dual Nature of Christ. This is a question of form (how many fingers to use) not of substance (Orthodoxy accepts both the Dual Nature of Christ and the Trinity). Other Orthodox churches are willing to live and let live. Infact, your Old Believers have found sanctuary in the Orthodox lands of your neighbors.
Given how you treat fellow Orthodox, I suppose that it isn't a great surprise that the Russian churches have such resistance to recognize that there are other, non-Orthodox, churches that haven't moved so far off the path as to render their sacrements meaningless.
The "sacraments" outside Orthodoxy are empty of Grace,
While I'll accept that there are some Orthodox who hold that view, it *is not* the possition of Orthodoxy per se. In fact, many Orthodox churches hold a diametrically different view.
otherwise, there would be not need for Orthodoxy. It is within the power of individual Orthodox Bishops to accept or reject a given heterodox baptism. None of them are required to accept any heterodox baptism.
I will accept that there has been no universal Orthodox requirement, but most, if not all, Orthodox churches have at least occasionally accepted them. That may not make their rites equal in our eyes, but it does mean that we recognize them has having some merit. For example, the Hindus have a sort of baptism in the Ganges. No Orthodox church is even thinking of contemplating recognizing those baptisms because, fundamentally, they aren't. We cannot say that Catholic and Anglican baptisims are fundamentally non-Christian, and we don't.
In any case, reconginzing that the Anglicans and Catholics are Christian, and have retained some of the common beliefs that used to unite us all in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, does not mean that they haven't strayed a little from the straight and narrow path, and certainly doesn't mean that recognizing that they are close enough to the true path to have valid rites doesn't mean that we should abandon the true path. Claiming that it does is, frankly, awfully Russian.
The reason that we accept Romanist, Anglican, and many Protestant baptisms (at least in the USA) is specifically because they have proper form, not because they are already fully Grace-filled.
Please note your own words here "they are [not] already fully Grace-filled." You didn't say that they are without Grace, you said that they aren't complete. That is fundamentally different than what you were arguing before, and much closer to the general Orthodox point of view.
Alexandre
