OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 06:35:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: why is re-baptism contradictory in Orthodox Faith?  (Read 14012 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #45 on: January 09, 2008, 03:38:28 PM »

I think your questions are quite valid, but the following question popped up in my head when I read this post:

If you're not Orthodox and don't intend on becoming Orthodox, why do you care whether "traditionalist EO" call you a Christian or not, and recognize your baptism per se or not?

Well, these were questions I had back when I was considering Orthodoxy, and I never could answer them.
Logged
ChristianLove
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #46 on: January 09, 2008, 03:53:21 PM »

Agreed Elisha. My eternal salvation is an emotional issue for my family, but I am doing my best to understand the Orthodox spiritual perspective, rather than just one modern understanding, or one theologian. The Protopresbyter's article quotes ecumenical councils' decisions and the conflict they have with a few modern Orthodox applications. It seems even with 7 ecumenical councils, many church fathers, and extensive body of Christ members, there are varying applications of "Orthodox" practice, but my question has to do with whether modern practice among some goes against the ecumenical councils and the earlier Orthodox practice, since currently there are 2 devout holy Orthodox sources in our region, who are providing me with two conflicting ideas on what is Orthodox and what is not.

Thanks for your prayers  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 03:54:37 PM by ChristianLove » Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 09, 2008, 03:57:09 PM »

I'll just chime in and say this:

(1) I personally prefer much stricter policies on baptizing folks -- namely, baptism and chrismation for all who were not baptized by triple immersion in the name of the Trinity and chrismated; chrismation for all who were baptized in the above manner but not chrismated; confession of faith for those who were baptized and chrismated in the above manner.  This is the historic practice of the OCA and the Russian church at large, as has been noted (citation HERE).

(2) I don't have a problem with there being multiple approaches in the Church universal; apparently the disagreement goes back to Ss. Stephen and Cyprian during the Roman persecution days and has never been resolved to this day!  So that doesn't bother me, as both ways of reception say the same thing, with one simply not saying such as forcefully (and thus careful clarification is needed).

(3) What I DO have a problem with is what's been noted repeatedly in this thread:

...because of we have overlapping jurisidictions with multiple synods, inquirers can go church shopping until they find a jurisdiction which suits their whims.

So many converts seem to go jurisdiction shopping with this, depending on how traditionalist they are. To the outsider, it looks like a confusing muddle and seems like it makes a charade of One Baptism.

So, this individual is seeking baptism in another jurisdiction and was approved for rebaptism.  How can we as Orthodox claim any universality in our belief of the very first sacrament if we cant get it together on this?HuhHuh?

I do wonder how hard can we criticize/judge the conservative Christian westerners for their differences in practice, and holding to different organizational structure, while they accept a Spirit Led Unity beyond organizational boundaries, when we cannot even agree on how a catechumen should enter "salvation" even amongst all Orthodox?

The point is this...We may have eucharistic unity and unity of many, many core essentials, and we may also be free to disagree with other Orthodox churches (as in, that of Greece, that of Russia, that of Serbia, etc) as to application of certain things and still remain in communion.  What gets me is that the jurisdictional overlapping causes chaos in a single, local area that leads to little more than the denomination-hopping I wanted to reject as an Evangelical. 

When an Orthodox Christian can be denied a second marriage in one jurisdiction then go to the other parish in town and have it done...

...when someone can desire to enter the church through baptism and, having been denied by one priest, can be granted what s/he as an individual wants by another priest just down the street...

...when someone is granted a divorce in one parish but is still recognized as married in the neighboring one...

...when a priest is received leniently in one jurisdiction, in which he serves faithfully for years, then is looked down on as not *really* being a priest in the same area his bishops' synod covers...

...then this is not Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy states that ONE bishop, presiding over ONE geographic area, declares for that area what will be done, PERIOD.  Moreover, that ONE bishop will be acting in concord with all the OTHER bishops in the surrounding areas which comprise the synod of that larger area, and the practice will be upheld in unison by all the participating bishops and priests.  For someone to get something other than the way THAT SYNOD decides it will be done, they'd not only have to "Get out of Dodge," but probably get out of the country!

In Orthodoxy, you do it the way your bishop says, and if you don't like it, you learn to deal with it.  You don't go to another jurisdiction because there IS no OTHER jurisdiction!  For us to continue like this is to continue in a maimed, incomplete, and diseased form of unity.  Yes, there's sacraments in common, but if we continue to diverge like this, for how much longer can we say this will be the case?

For an excellent (and similarly forceful, I'm afraid) interview of this topic, click
HERE for AFR's most recent Illumined Heart podcast... 


...Lord, have mercy...Undecided
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
ChristianLove
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #48 on: January 09, 2008, 06:53:24 PM »

"Be Ye ONE even as the Father and the Son are ONE" is our LORD's calling on all of His faithful followers and of course, a higher standard could not have been set for Oneness as that of the Father and the Son.

Robert, on the book presented online and the councils and Orthodox sections and monasteries of Mt. Athos which require Roman Catholics to be baptized, I was wondering why did the second ecumenical council not "require" baptism of all those who had been baptized in the name of a different Trinity (Father, lower created god Jesus, and the spirit), but we require those who clearly believe in the Holy Trinity as One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to be re-baptized by declaring their baptism as null and void?

The filioque division seems to have not ever been interpreted by the official positions of either of these churches as changing the nature of the Holy Trinity, although there is obvious disagreement whether Roman councils had authority to add its clarification to the earlier council's creed.

I believe our Bishops and Metropolitan are doing their best to try to fulfill Christ's Oneness in His Body and in the working of His unlimited Holy Spirit everywhere and at all times, by not requiring baptism of Trinitarian converts to Orthodoxy, aren't they?
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,381



« Reply #49 on: January 09, 2008, 10:17:53 PM »

I believe our Bishops and Metropolitan are doing their best to try to fulfill Christ's Oneness in His Body and in the working of His unlimited Holy Spirit everywhere and at all times, by not requiring baptism of Trinitarian converts to Orthodoxy, aren't they?

I don't think so. The holy spirit descends on a convert at the time of chrismation. St John the forerunner baptized converts with a baptism of repentance. This is how I believe the orthodox view a heterodox baptism

Acts 19:4
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,455


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2008, 12:03:48 AM »

When I take my class on the Ecumenical Councils I will make sure to ask Fr. Dragas (the author of the above discussed article) what he meant.  If anyone would like to compile a list of questions for him, i'd be more than happy to get back to you. 

Just PM me.  ("private message" - for those who don't know what that means)
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,145


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2008, 01:43:11 AM »

I was wondering why did the second ecumenical council not "require" baptism of all those who had been baptized in the name of a different Trinity (Father, lower created god Jesus, and the spirit), but we require those who clearly believe in the Holy Trinity as One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to be re-baptized by declaring their baptism as null and void?
I think what was seen as the most important issue here is the form of the ritual.  According to one of the articles you posted, even Arians baptized by triple immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even though they did not acknowledge the full divinity of the Son.  This is much closer to proper ritual form than the modern Roman church's practice of baptism by pouring.  Evidently, the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council considered ritual form more important than underlying doctrine when they determined whose baptisms should be recognized upon entry into the Church and whose should not.  Don't be confused, though, for even the Arian baptism was recognized as "null and void" prior to one's entry into the Church.
Logged
ChristianLove
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #52 on: January 10, 2008, 02:20:16 AM »

Peter, a good Orthodox friend of mine thought of this one and said if that logic was followed up, that would mean that if a Jehovah's witness or another cult which denies the Trinity (like titled Orthodox Catholic Bishop Arius, his priests and followers did), but they had followed triple immersion in the "name" of Father, secondary created son, and the Holy Spirit, and they now wanted to join Orthodoxy, they would have a stronger "justification" for not needing to be baptized  Smiley.

side questions: When an Arian parishoner living in Bishop Arius' "districts", reconnected with the Holy Spirit's Church, or those catholic orthodox parishoners living in district run by Phrygian and Sabellian bishops, they were not considered to have been double born again-again, where they? If someone asked them when were you born again, would they say it was at chrismation into the council approved Orthodox Church or were the effects of the sacrament assumed to have taken place right after birth, when they had been baptized with triple immersion?

I do find it powerful that our theological agreement or disagreements with our Orthodox brethren can have such lasting impact on our Christian lives. Thanks for all who have been kind enough to provide wonderful insights. After talking to our priest, if he insists on following the direction of the monks' teachings on so many areas, I probably do have to follow up with our Bishop and/or Metropolitan, but not being Orthodox, might put me at a major precarious position, especially if I get political concerns involved in such questions.

It has been a sad but thought provoking eye opener to know that a convert has to face such drastic areas to continue on the path of following God  Sad Undecided
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,636



« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2008, 02:31:51 AM »

I don't know how many of the people discussing here the "proper form" of baptism are aware that there are millions of Orthodox out there that were baptized by triple pouring in the Orthodox Church, by an Orthodox priest in an Orthodox land. I'm just one of them. Wink
Logged
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,836



« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2008, 09:21:14 AM »

Beloved in the Lord,

The purpose of the Convert issues forum is to provide a a place on the OC.Net where inquirers, catechumen, and newly converted could ask their questions about the Orthodox Faith in a safe and supportive forum without retribution or recrimination. Many of those posting in this area are ignorant of Orthodox teachings and are using this forum to understand what are the basic teachings and practices of the Orthodox churches. Due to the simplicity of many of their requests and responses, direct and simple answers with sources if possible are most helpful.

If the moderators find that the discusions become faith or jurisdiction debates, the topic will be split and sent the appropriate OC.Net forum to continue the discussion or debate. As a poster,You may also ask that a topic be split so that a private discussion can be established to go into detail about the issues that you feel adamant about and wish to debate or discuss. The convert forum is not a place for combative debate or arguement. 

Thank you for your following these guidelines to the edification and spiritual growth of the forum inquirers, catechumen, and newly converted.

In Christ,
Thomas
Convert Forum Moderator
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2008, 04:32:49 PM »

Question:

Roman Catholics need valid "form, matter, and intent" to consider a sacrament as "valid".

What do Orthodox consider?

Thanks,
Robert
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2008, 04:33:48 PM »

In the later times when western terms were employed for Orthodox concepts, the Orthodox would agree.

The difference arises in that Russians consider pouring "valid form" and Greeks do not (traditionally).

Anastasios
« Last Edit: January 10, 2008, 04:33:57 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2008, 04:34:47 PM »

I don't know how many of the people discussing here the "proper form" of baptism are aware that there are millions of Orthodox out there that were baptized by triple pouring in the Orthodox Church, by an Orthodox priest in an Orthodox land. I'm just one of them. Wink

Yes, a practice that has reared its head many times in history and which we must be constantly vigilant to combat whenever it does. Wink
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2008, 05:01:14 PM »

So, Mormons (LDS) baptize with water via triple full immersion (matter), trinitarian format (form), and hope to baptize (intent), why wouldn't their baptism be considered valid for jurisdictions who receive via Chrismation?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2008, 05:01:50 PM by Robert » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2008, 05:04:36 PM »

So, Mormons (LDS) baptize with water via triple full immersion (matter), trinitarian format (form), and hope to baptize (intent), why wouldn't their baptism be considered valid for jurisdictions who receive via Chrismation?

I believe it would be because their understanding of God is polytheistic.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2008, 05:13:04 PM »

So, Mormons (LDS) baptize with water via triple full immersion (matter), trinitarian format (form), and hope to baptize (intent), why wouldn't their baptism be considered valid for jurisdictions who receive via Chrismation?
They don't mean the same thing by baptism "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as Christians do because they do not believe in the Trinitarian God, "one in essence and undivided".
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,836



« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2008, 05:13:16 PM »

As a former Mormon I can verify that!  The LDS Churches understanding of the Holy Trinity is not trinitarian in Orthodox terminology but is polytheistic as they teach that each member of the Godhead is a seperate and distict person and each is an individual God.  Therefore the baprism is invalid because of Theology not form, intent, or matter but rather the spirit and diety of the event is invalid.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,464


« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2008, 05:57:28 PM »

In the later times when western terms were employed for Orthodox concepts, the Orthodox would agree.

The difference arises in that Russians consider pouring "valid form" and Greeks do not (traditionally).

Anastasios

But answer me this:
We have a recently illumined (sometime within the past year) who weighs over 300 pounds and is confined to a wheel chair.  To baptize him, we took the big trough (baptismal fount), took one of those round dual-handled plastic tubs (probably around 10+ gallon size) and poured a few gallons of water on him three times (filling it with a few gallons each time).  What do you think your group would have done?
Logged
RPConover
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2008, 06:52:37 PM »

In the later times when western terms were employed for Orthodox concepts, the Orthodox would agree.

The difference arises in that Russians consider pouring "valid form" and Greeks do not (traditionally).

Anastasios

Doesn't the Didache mention pouring when necessary though? It says: "1 Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in running water; 2 but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

I can see why it wouldn't be preferable, but why wouldn't it be valid form?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: January 10, 2008, 09:55:25 PM »

Question:

Roman Catholics need valid "form, matter, and intent" to consider a sacrament as "valid".

What do Orthodox consider?
Just as Catholics have their own criteria for what makes a valid Sacrament, so do the Orthodox have their criteria, the primary one being the requirement for an Orthodox minister (which can be any member of the faithful in the case of Baptism.)

So to the three Catholic requirements: "form, matter, and intent" the Orthodox add a fourth:
"form, matter, intent, and minister."

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,145


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #65 on: January 11, 2008, 03:15:01 AM »

But answer me this:
We have a recently illumined (sometime within the past year) who weighs over 300 pounds and is confined to a wheel chair.  To baptize him, we took the big trough (baptismal fount), took one of those round dual-handled plastic tubs (probably around 10+ gallon size) and poured a few gallons of water on him three times (filling it with a few gallons each time).  What do you think your group would have done?
Clearly exceptions need to be made for the physical disabilities of some newly baptized, and I believe our canonical tradition even recognizes this.  Would you, though, make such exceptions into a rule to be applied even for those people who don't have such exceptional needs?
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,464


« Reply #66 on: January 11, 2008, 05:37:11 AM »

Clearly exceptions need to be made for the physical disabilities of some newly baptized, and I believe our canonical tradition even recognizes this.  Would you, though, make such exceptions into a rule to be applied even for those people who don't have such exceptional needs?

Thank you, but I would like our Webdespota's response.
Logged
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,836



« Reply #67 on: January 11, 2008, 09:26:23 AM »

Doesn't the Didache mention pouring when necessary though? It says: "1 Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in running water; 2 but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head "in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

I can see why it wouldn't be preferable, but why wouldn't it be valid form?

Once again we see why the use of proper oeconomia by the Bishop is so important.  Under the charism of the Holy Spirit that is given to the Bishop, the bishop (and the bishop alone) makes decisions on exceptions to practice necessary for the Salvation of men and women in his jurisdiction or diocese.  In this case the Bishop may grant whatever oeconomia he feels necessary to get this child of God into the fold, the practices and directions of the Holy fathers help him in making this decision under the charism of his calling.

Thomas
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 09:30:15 AM by Thomas » Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,836



« Reply #68 on: January 11, 2008, 09:35:15 AM »

Just as Catholics have their own criteria for what makes a valid Sacrament, so do the Orthodox have their criteria, the primary one being the requirement for an Orthodox minister (which can be any member of the faithful in the case of Baptism.)

So to the three Catholic requirements: "form, matter, and intent" the Orthodox add a fourth:
"form, matter, intent, and minister."



In the matter of efficacity of the Mormon (LDS) baptism the term minister must come forward also.  The actual wording of their baptismal fomula is "Having been commissioned by Jesus Christ, I Baptise you in the name of the Father (full immersion), and of the Son (full immersion), and of the Holy Ghost (full imersion) Amen."  Thus as the Orthodox do not believe that Mormons have been commissioned by Christ to do the baptism, the act is invalid as well as their understanding of the Holy Trinity.

Thomas

« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 09:35:51 AM by Thomas » Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #69 on: January 11, 2008, 10:38:04 AM »

In the matter of efficacity of the Mormon (LDS) baptism the term minister must come forward also.  The actual wording of their baptismal fomula is "Having been commissioned by Jesus Christ, I Baptise you in the name of the Father (full immersion), and of the Son (full immersion), and of the Holy Ghost (full imersion) Amen."  Thus as the Orthodox do not believe that Mormons have been commissioned by Christ to do the baptism, the act is invalid as well as their understanding of the Holy Trinity.

Thomas



Thanks all for the much needed information about LDS Baptismal rituals.

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 11, 2008, 11:08:37 AM »

But answer me this:
We have a recently illumined (sometime within the past year) who weighs over 300 pounds and is confined to a wheel chair.  To baptize him, we took the big trough (baptismal fount), took one of those round dual-handled plastic tubs (probably around 10+ gallon size) and poured a few gallons of water on him three times (filling it with a few gallons each time).  What do you think your group would have done?

The same. This is obviously a reason to use economy. Our objection is to using economy in non emergency situations.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,381



« Reply #71 on: January 11, 2008, 04:23:24 PM »

Although Orthodoxy tries very diligently to keep it's forms. The most important facet is not form but rather the metaphysical aspect of baptism.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
ChristianLove
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #72 on: January 11, 2008, 06:29:07 PM »

Does Traditional and faithful Orthodoxy differentiate among theological canons vs. lower canons like lower 't' or bigger "T" applied to Holy Tradition?

Also, any concerns about going against the Spirit of Grace when such emphasis is put on forms like some 1st century Christians were caught up in emphasizing old testament Judaic forms and "laws" (i.e. Christian form canons)?

Thanks.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,464


« Reply #73 on: January 11, 2008, 06:40:40 PM »

The same. This is obviously a reason to use economy. Our objection is to using economy in non emergency situations.

Then I think the discussion needs to be more about defining an "emergency" or "exceptional circumstances".  ITSM that "economy" has been abused in the past (and present to I guess), but on the same side, many traditionalist or Old Calendarist groups may be too quick to be outraged.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: January 11, 2008, 08:00:17 PM »

Here is a patristic viewpoint from Saint Basil the Great.  Notice the typical balance of the Church Fathers - while the principle of no Baptism outside the Chruch is clearly enunciated, Saint Basil also states very clearly that for the sake of the good of the Church "economy" may be used if it is thought necessary.


Epistle to Amphilochius (of which the "First Canon" of Saint Basil is a shorter version) 

---- "It seemed best to the ancients-I refer to Cyprian and our own Firmilian-to subject all of these-Cathari, and Encratites, and Hydroparastatae-to one vote of condemnation, because the beginning of this separation arose through schism, and those who had broken away from the Church no longer had in them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the imparting of it failed because of the severance of continuity.

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but those who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore they commanded those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church.

"But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia that, by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it be accepted."

Notice the word economy used here by Saint Basil with reference to situations when baptism is not insisted upon. Saint Athanasius also uses the word economy with reference to the reception of heretics.
Logged
ChristianLove
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #75 on: January 16, 2008, 02:51:33 PM »

Our priest gave me a book to read which included the baptism sacrament. Wow! I had no idea how powerful and clear was the Orthodox understanding and experiential references to God's Kingdom setting us apart against the invisible Satan and his cohorts.

I had an unusual experience reading the Orthodox sacramental provisions on baptism. I sensed a strong presence of God and for maybe 30 minutes, I could almost see breaks in the air to a different dimension. Either I am losing my mind or God is Real and Present. As one with mostly intellectually strong bent, this supernatural experience of God's Presence is unusual for me and I have not had anymore, even when reading the same document. Obviously the content for Orthodox agreement is much much more important than my personal experience.

In all honesty, my protestant teachings on baptism are so far from the Orthodox church fathers' understanding of the power of God and the importance of baptism as an important part of our salvation. Infact, after reading this, I know that almost all theologians on the modern protestant side would go against Orthodox teachings and would declare us opposed to their modern way of "salvation". But of course, they would also have a hard time with their founder, Martin Luther and probably John Calvin on the importance of God's Grace in the Sacraments as well.

Probably a canon law specialist is needed to understand when a convert needs to be baptized as well as Chrismated. I believe it would probably not be good to be in doubt about the special Grace of God available through His Holy Sacrament of Baptism and with the blessings of our Bishop, hope to be able to partake of God's Grace here. Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD God Almighty! Bless His Holy Name!

Thanks all for your timely and kind guidance always.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,455


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 16, 2008, 05:47:30 PM »

So are you giving up on the topic? 

I would highly recommend that you do not.  It would be a shame for you to not have a greater understanding one of the most foundational of sacraments. 

There are tons of books and even online resources for you to delve into this topic. 

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ChristianLove
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #77 on: January 16, 2008, 11:19:16 PM »

Thanks Serb. Not giving up, but rather trying to move forward with our entrance into the Church and our protection from our invisible enemy and his cohorts, through the Grace given by the Holy Sacraments of the Church. The resources here have been most helpful.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #78 on: February 09, 2008, 02:15:16 AM »

A friend of mine is Roman Catholic and he will not ever be able to partake of communion at our parish as long as he follows the canons and does not accept to be rebaptized, which is a requirement by our priest, although not by our bishop, and not by other priests in our Orthodox jurisdiction  Huh

I thought by looking on the web and talking with a few Church theologians and trusted Orthodox sources, I would find clear answers to this. Was I ever wrong  Smiley

I understand that at times and in certain places, chrismation covers over faulty baptisms, especially if the baptism was done in a Trinitarian conservative protestant or Roman Catholic church, rather than a cult like Jehovahs witness or Mormon org. Read a few posts about re-baptism of converts here, and man, it's even more confusing. One theologian has strong historical grounds for fighting against rebaptism, especially of Roman Catholic converts, since rebaptism would mean that Orthodox Church has passed judgement on the work of the Holy Spirit in other nonOrthodox churches by declaring their baptism invalid.

My question: why are "basic fundamental" issues like baptism of a convert still in limbo within the Orthodox communion who have the united testimony of Church fathers and under One baptism. Is it truly because St. Cyprian was out of line with the canons of the Church? If yes, then, why don't canons take precedence over a few isolated church fathers and over even some holy men at Mt Athos? After all, holy living does not make anyone's theology preside over Orthodox theology.

How could we have some Russian Orthodox members insist on re-baptism, without which a believer cannot partake of Holy Eucharist, while other Orthodox churches clearly only require chrismation, and acknowledge the freedom of the Holy Spirit to work outside of our Orthodox boundaries?

What I'm wondering is what's the difference between a protestant not accepting our reading of parts of the Church Fathers and canons, and Orthodox priests and theologians who also disagree with "basic fundamentals" of our faith and how can a catechumen peacefully and eternally know whether he/she should have been rebaptized prior to chrismation and whether he/she has mistakenly placed his soul in jeopardy by not being fully re-baptized according to full Orthodox understanding?

Thanks kindly,



This was a dispute between Cyprian and the Roman Bishop of his day in the 3rd century. Some make the mistake in thinking it goes back to Augustine, but it doesn't. It came from a dispute between those in the city of Carthage vs those from the city of Rome.


Eventualy they both agreed.....I may be wrong about this because it's been some time since I read Cyprian, but I think they agreed to not re-baptize those who were Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


However, there may be more things involved than just that.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 09, 2008, 02:20:30 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #79 on: February 11, 2008, 09:07:27 AM »

A friend of mine is Roman Catholic and he will not ever be able to partake of communion at our parish as long as he follows the canons and does not accept to be rebaptized, which is a requirement by our priest, although not by our bishop, and not by other priests in our Orthodox jurisdiction  Huh

We have a similar situation at the Mission at Ningi. The priest who regularly comes up from Brisbane baptises Roman Catholics. (Anyone who knows anything about the Roman Catholic parish in South Brisbane will have no doubts as to why.) However the missionary priest who comes up from Sydney every few months chrismats without (re-)baptising Roman Catholics. There is one RC lady who has expressed in joining our local Church who is not willing to be baptised lest her mother take offence. Hence, it was suggested to her to talk to the priest from Sydney when he's next up.

How this relates to your problem: Just have your friend visit one of the other priests to be chrismated and received into The Church. This seems like the simplest solution.
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,455


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #80 on: February 11, 2008, 10:59:39 PM »



How this relates to your problem: Just have your friend visit one of the other priests to be chrismated and received into The Church. This seems like the simplest solution.

Simple can easily become simplistic, or redactionist, which is not consistent with orthodoxy.  We don't say that God is "the big boss upstairs" as that would be a disservice to God.  I agree with your solution, just not your reasons necessarily...things are not always as "simple" as they seem....

eh...just a thought...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ebpusey
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican Catholic
Posts: 37



« Reply #81 on: March 06, 2008, 01:53:12 PM »

The mention of the debate between St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen (I believe) is telling. It illustrates that there has been diversity within the Church, at least in this case. However, I do believe it is clear that the Orthodox Church teaches that there are no Sacraments outside of the Church, as there is but One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism (and that, of course, is that of the Orthodox Church.)

On a different note, one regarding the reception of Roman Catholics: whilst I was in the OCA, I noticed that Roman Catholics were only to be anointed upon the forehead and not on the eyes, ears, breast, etc. This seems to me to indicate that the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation is, in some sense, "correct" otherwise they would be anointed in the traditional sense. I can only imagine that this is a newer practice of the jurisdiction and am not sure if it is the practice of most of the non-baptizing jurisdictions. Could anyone shed some light on this?
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #82 on: March 06, 2008, 02:02:22 PM »

The mention of the debate between St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen (I believe) is telling. It illustrates that there has been diversity within the Church, at least in this case. However, I do believe it is clear that the Orthodox Church teaches that there are no Sacraments outside of the Church, as there is but One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism (and that, of course, is that of the Orthodox Church.)

On a different note, one regarding the reception of Roman Catholics: whilst I was in the OCA, I noticed that Roman Catholics were only to be anointed upon the forehead and not on the eyes, ears, breast, etc. This seems to me to indicate that the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation is, in some sense, "correct" otherwise they would be anointed in the traditional sense. I can only imagine that this is a newer practice of the jurisdiction and am not sure if it is the practice of most of the non-baptizing jurisdictions. Could anyone shed some light on this?

I've not heard of that.  The Latin converts in my OCA parish are all chrismated in the normal fashion.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #83 on: March 06, 2008, 02:13:59 PM »

I've not heard of that.  The Latin converts in my OCA parish are all chrismated in the normal fashion.

That is because the resolution to adopt the new form of chrismation for Catholics did not have a lot of support even though it made it through the Synod.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
ebpusey
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican Catholic
Posts: 37



« Reply #84 on: March 06, 2008, 02:20:55 PM »

Hmmmm...well, it was definitely in the booklet for Chrismation in my parish.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #85 on: March 06, 2008, 02:55:49 PM »

Yes, it was approved but some of the bishops just simply ignore it.

It was an attempt to customize the rite of reception for Catholics since they are perceived as being closer to Orthodox than Protestants.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
ebpusey
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican Catholic
Posts: 37



« Reply #86 on: March 06, 2008, 04:16:55 PM »

It also seems like a tacit recognition of their sacramental life, vis-a-vis Confirmation.  Anyways, that was my perception.
Logged
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #87 on: March 06, 2008, 05:02:18 PM »

That is because the resolution to adopt the new form of chrismation for Catholics did not have a lot of support even though it made it through the Synod.

That's really unfortunate (the making it through the Synod part).

I have to say, I'm not too pleased with my jurisdiction right now.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 05:02:53 PM by Symeon » Logged
ebpusey
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican Catholic
Posts: 37



« Reply #88 on: March 06, 2008, 05:07:36 PM »

That's really unfortunate (the making it through the Synod part).

I have to say, I'm not too pleased with my jurisdiction right now.

I really don't know how widely the use is practised. It may generally just be considered a recommendation (kind of like the speed limit in Atlanta Wink).
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #89 on: November 04, 2008, 02:52:41 PM »

By JoeS
Quote
In my humble opinion, any Baptism beyong a "legitimate" Baptism ie one who has been baptized in the Trinitarian Tradition is a waste of time and amounts to insignificance.
Baptizing a Baptized person only cheapens the Sacrament.  It doesnt have any grace giving properties since it is unnecessary to begin with.  The rebaptized person's sins are NOT forgiven again as in the first Baptism and the salvation of that person being rebaptized could be in jeapardy.

I would still like to know why some believe that being re-baptized is dangerous?

I had to be re-baptized because the "pastor" that baptized me burned down the church for the insurance money a couple years later. (Although I highly doubt they would have kept a record of it to begin with).
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 02:56:52 PM by Quinault » Logged
Tags: converts baptism 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.143 seconds with 72 queries.