Yup

So makes sense half our worlds would use a Latin derived plural system

Thanks to the rape of English by the Normans

For basic words every peasant knows, such as man, mouse, woman, we use an umlaut stem changing plural

And the rape of orthodoxy in England <:aaa:509492295599652864>

But for the Germanic word king we use kings

REEEE

cyning

Se Westseaxnas cyning, Æþelræd se unræd

Wessex/Westseaxna (west saxons)

Northumbria/Norþan Hymbra

Hey there is an extra space in my name

The Ireland Church was staying in Orthodoxy until the British King received the autorisation of the Pope to invade the island in order to reform that Church.

All of that before becoming Anglican.

British = Perfect guys

@Constantin le Lamantin The quote I have given is from St Augustine. And the 2nd ecumenical council clearly makes a distinction between heresies that pretty much amount to being heathens that are not christians, and those which don't. That is why, when they mentiion the baptism of one of these heresies, it is said how they have altered the baptism so that it reflects the non-trinitarian heresy. Of other heresies it is showed how they are not baptized. So yes, the belief that baptism is invalid if performed by heretics, is a heresy. A baptism is valid when the formula is correct.

@Mozalbete ⳩ So the Arians were using a correct formula ?

I think that, by arians, they still include people who accepted the trinity, and other more extreme forms of arianism as being a heathen. Which is why it is not said that arians would be rebaptized

So you are mading that of your personal interpretation. The text is saying arians. Are arians trinitarian ? @Mozalbete ⳩

The text is saying that arians and others are not rebaptized. That is not my personal interpretation.

So arians use the correct formula ?

That is for you to decide. But your position is that any baptism in heresy is not valid. You used as evidence the 2nd ec. council. But that very council states examples where tehre is no re-baptism

No.

You should have read what I said later.

I do not concern myself with anything beyond what you answered to me

You tried to quote the 2nd ecumenical council, but it disproves what you said

"Yup. The majority of Orthodox in countries which aren't do chrismation to Trinitarians considering the baptism as valid. But that was also said at the IInd Ecumenical Council. (Canon 7)"

That is what I said, when I was asked why orthodox people don't always rebaptize.

There is no re-baptism. There is only one baptism. The point is that in some cases there is no baptism, but saying that any heresy is grounds for that is what I oppose

Now is there is some kind of process, that is normal, but it shouldn't be said that one has to be baptized, when the baptism is clearly valid

Hy

Hi @Lao Tseu Takedown

Hi!

Isn't any water points or running water available in the Catholic countries ?

Yeah there is only one baptism, "re" baptism is a semantic error

There is a process that is normal, it's baptising converts. Reception by chrismation only is an exception, it is economy/oikonomia granted by some bishops

The only time when rebaptism is needed is if your first baptism wasn't valid, and that would only be if you weren't baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The canons disagree

Well, then, I should probably study more on the subject.

7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council is the first thing that comes to mind

The canons don't disagree. I don't see any canon beyond the 5th, but if that is the one you mention, in no way does it contradict what was said.