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
That is like saying we are both human, but one of us is less human. This flies in the face of particular Churches being "true Churches."
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).
Any baptism that does not conform to the requirement of triple immersion (whether by dunking or pouring over the entire body starting with the head) and the Triune "formula" is not proper Baptism practiced by the Church of the 1st millennium. If there is any doubt, based on lack of record or based on known practices of non-Orthodox Christians (including Latin or Latinized Catholics, but not Eastern Churches in communion with Rome), and out of the concern for the convert's soul, it is incumbent on the receiving bishop to subject the convert to proper baptism or chrismation or both.
I am not surprised that your Church accepts the baptisms of non-Catholics given that your own Church doe snot perform baptisms in the spirit of the meaning of the word baptizo which is to say immersion. I am surprised that you find Orthodox reluctance surprising,
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.
The people are the guardians of the Orthodox faith. No one individual is. The Orthodox do not give any one individual, save Christ, the sole credit for anything. Orthodox bishops count only in the Synod and the People of God (the "laity") count as a group. Eastern Churches are conciliar the way the apostles were, with no one individual lording over a groups of others.
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 ...and apparently, you have some bishops, too, who have done something similar, although I am entirely unaware of such widely-proclaimed public pronouncements.
I have already indicated to you that I find that reprehensible and reject such ethnic chauvinism. I have personally been unaware of either one of these individual's (as I am not Greek). It is a shame that the Greek Church of America can be so hypocritical as to honor open abortionists while preaching anti-abortionist beliefs. It is hypocrisy beyond excuse and a shame that needs to be publicly condemned by Greeks, Orthodox across the board, and Catholics. Shame on the GOC of America!!!