Valid baptism makes one a member of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Valid baptism can be performed by anyone, even a non-believer. From what you are saying, baptism does not make one either "Catholic" or "Orthodox."
However, many folks who are validly baptized don't have formal membership in the Catholic Church.
They don't have formal membership in the Church centered on communion with the Pope of Rome, but they do have a membership in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
So, I'm not sure whether or not that's quite what the Orthodox believe
They believe that valid baptisms brings one into the Church and that there is only one Church. That makes us all ontologically Christian. They also believe that some particular Churches are theologically in disagreement with others. The division is hierarchical.
I've heard that at least some Orthodox re-baptize other Christians who come into the Orthodox Church, which of course is an explicit rejection of that person's connection in any way to the Church of Christ
The Eastern Churches baptize the same way the Church (East or West) baptized in the first millennium – triple immersion (or pouring over the head covering the entire body) in the name of the Holy Trinity. If a bishop is unsure how a convert was baptized, or if the baptism of a particular Christian community where the convert comes from baptizes in any other way, the convert will be baptized (not "re-baptized" since no baptism took place) and sealed (chrismated) with holy oil.
If, on the other hand, a bishop can learn to his satisfaction that a person has been baptized then he will order either chrismation of the convert or, as is the usual case of Coptic Orthodox converts, a simple profession of faith (Nicene Creed sans filioque).
The Eastern Churches do not do this as a "rejection" of that person's connection to the Church since invalid baptism does not bring one into the Church. These measures of economy are made entirely for the well being of the convert's soul, so as to dispel any possible doubt that the new member of the Church is truly brought into the Church.
Second, I believe that both the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church hold to the belief that they, themselves, constitute the true Church, complete and without lack
The Orthodox hold that their Church has maintained theological orthodoxy of the Church of the Seven Councils, and represents the theologically unchanged Christianity of the same, i.e. the catholic faith once delivered and believed everywhere and always. The Orthodox see the western Church theologically in error on some issues and in need of resolution in an Ecumenical Council. That makes Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, Mary's bodily assumption, Purgatory, etc. in house theological disagreements.
Since the Bishop of Rome is behind these theological differences, the East cannot be in communion with him until these are theologically resolved. This is not a rejection of his primacy or his episcopacy. Communion is an expression of (theological) unity and not a means of achieving one.
The East maintains that any church with an orthodox bishop is the Catholic Church in all its fullness, apostolic authority, sacraments and orthodox faith. The Church is not a sum total of individual parts, but one Body, indivisible and whole. The Church has maintained that at least since +Ignatius (late 1st and early 2nd century).
Similarly, we Catholic believe the same thing about our Church, that it is the true Church, founded by Jesus Christ, and lacking nothing ontologically
The Church lacks nothing ontologically. The Church is divided along episcopal jurisdictions, theologically, not ontologically. Some particular Churches are theologically deficient in the eyes of other Churches. This is a matter of an Ecumenical Council to resolve. The reason one cannot be convened is because there is also a division along ecclesial principles, especially in regards to the extent and meaning of papal primacy. Until such topics are mutually agreed upon, a General Synod cannot be convened to resolve theological differences that developed over centuries. This still does not make us two Churches but one, and our differences are in house differences.
So we each lay claim to being the true Church, Catholic and Orthodox, one, holy, apostolic, but admit that the other have true particular Churches, even if they don't comprise ontologically the One Church.
That is rather nonsensical. You cannot have "true particular" Churches that are not part of the True Church. What makes the Church Catholic is the apostolic authority passed on to the bishops in an unbroken succession, a valid clergy, and valid sacraments. Both particular Churches have valid clergy, the same apostolic authority and the same mysteries.
In any event, all arguments that we should share caucus threads generally under the rubric of “Catholic” or otherwise ring hollow when leading Orthodox posters declare us all apostate bishop-worshippers.
Orthodox posters are individual posters, with individual opinions. After all, that's what the Forum is about – opinions! Even leading Orthodox posters on this Forum do not represent or claim to represent the Orthodox Church but only their private opinions. Last time I checked, none of them has been identified as the official voice of the Orthodox Church. You are creating a straw man my FRiend.
You mean like my former United States Senator, Paul Sarbanes, or my current United States Representative, John Sarbanes, both self-identified Orthodox Christians who each never met an abortion he didn't like, who respectively ran and currently run for office as completely pro-abortion politicians?
Indeed, the GOC in America has been extremely hypocritical in that regard (including Senator Olympia Snowe).
Sorry, kosta50, but in my view, the hierarchies of all our particular Churches haven't done what they ought to do. In my own area, both Messrs. Sarbanes have been celebrated by the local Orthodox churches as favorite Orthodox sons.
No argument here. Ethnic chauvinism is obviously at play here. But the GOC does not represent all Orthodox and as far as I know Ecum. Patriarch Batholomew I is staunchly opposed to abortion.
Perhaps they're saying it, too, but I haven't actually heard any public discussion from any Orthodox prelates of the pro-abort politics of Orthodox politicians.
The Orthodox Church of America does. Again, the Greeks are not the only Orthodox in America and do not speak for all Orthodox in this country.
It may be that one or both of us understands the ontology of our respective Churches wrongly, or the understanding of our two Churches differs, but I don't agree with your understanding of their ontology.
From the Catholic perspective, we believe that the Orthodox Churches lack something ontologically from having the fullness of the Church.
I understood that the Orthodox view is similar. But I could be mistaken.
“From what you are saying, baptism does not make one either ‘Catholic’ or ‘Orthodox.’”
No, that's not quite what I said.
“They believe that valid baptisms brings one into the Church and that there is only one Church.”
I'll extend a little what I said. It appears that at least some Orthodox generally reject as valid the baptisms performed by non-Orthodox. This is in contradistinction to the Catholic Church, which generally accepts non-Catholic baptism as valid (with certain exceptions to the rule).
As well, I was under the impression that in Orthodoxy, not anyone could validly perform a baptism, but that's a digression.
"Orthodox posters are individual posters, with individual opinions."
First, we are always being lectured about how the Orthodox PEOPLE are the true guardians of Orthodox faith, so that doesn't fly on the level of first principles. But second, it wouldn't matter to me anyway. I'm not describing the formal positions between our Churches (notice the plural there, even though in some sense we share membership in one Church, we are nonetheless divided) as seen by head-in-the-clouds theological commissions. I'm talking about the reality on the ground, here at FR, which is where we're talking about caucus labels.
“The Orthodox Church of America does. Again, the Greeks are not the only Orthodox in America and do not speak for all Orthodox in this country.”
Some Catholic bishops do. Some don't. No bishop speaks for all Catholics in this country.
The current situation in both Churches in the US renders this comment invalid:
“Is there any wonder then that to the Orthodox any union with such aberrations seems undesirable or even some individuals in particular actually heretical. I mean, Pelosi argues that the Church was not always opposed to abortion. Is that ‘orthodox?’”
We have our Pelosis, you have your Sarbanes. We have our Kennedys, you have your Stephanopolouses. We also have our Bishop Tobins, Archbishop Burkes, and a host of other episcopal voices who have at least spoken publicly to rebuke the heresies of individual Catholic politicians [even a number of our "squishies" publicly condemned what Nancy Pelosi said, including Archbishop Wuerl and her own archbishop, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco], and apparently, you have some bishops, too, who have done something similar, although I am entirely unaware of such widely-proclaimed public pronouncements.
sitetest