Author Topic: Re-baptism  (Read 3442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re-baptism
« on: December 26, 2012, 11:46:35 AM »
Let us take the case of a person who was born into an EO family and baptized as an infant.

In his adult years, he falls away from the Eastern Orthodox Church and joins/believes in another religion for many years. (he never had real sincere faith at all).

Finally he truly accepts Jesus as his savior (after many years) and returns to the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Now I wish to inquire if he needs to be re-baptized from the EOC's viewpoint, or his infant baptism which was done years ago is still considered valid by the EOC ?




Second Question: If a person moves from the Roman Catholic faith to the Eastern Orthodox faith, does he need to be re-baptized, or the EOC recognizes the RCC's baptism as a valid Sacrament?



Third Question : Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?


« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 11:52:01 AM by kx9 »

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2012, 11:57:21 AM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 11:58:21 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Ashman618

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2012, 12:43:56 PM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

To say something like God saves whom He chooses and then affirm the reality of hell is a sticky situation. No?

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,249
  • Je suis Janusz Korwin-Mikke
  • Faith: I'm a Vegan
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to ROCOR
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2012, 01:27:04 PM »
Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

AFAIK Athos, Serbia and part of ROCOR rebaptizes/used to rebaptize RCs. Also, IIRC Fr. Ambrose mentioned some non-Slavic bishop from Australasia who rebaptizes RCs.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2012, 01:39:28 PM »

To say something like God saves whom He chooses and then affirm the reality of hell is a sticky situation. No?

How so?

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,980
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2012, 02:48:03 PM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline Tommelomsky

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 511
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2012, 05:03:31 PM »
Of curiousness, is a former catholic regarded as heterodox? To some here, it might is strange, but if I in time could choose, very much a baptism is wished. To start life all over again with a clean soul and a new beginning.

Maybe I`m just a odd norseman, but that is how I think about this.
I will not be posting or participating here anymore.
They claim this is an Orthodox Christian forum.
Well, it is not!

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2012, 05:06:12 PM »
Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,429
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2012, 05:08:35 PM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.

The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council disagree with you.

Offline Ashman618

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2012, 05:34:28 PM »

To say something like God saves whom He chooses and then affirm the reality of hell is a sticky situation. No?

How so?

1. Soul A. is in hell because God chose not to save them.

2. Soul A. is In hell because God chose to condem them.

Can either of these statements fit with Orthodoxy?

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,524
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2012, 07:28:34 PM »
Second Question: If a person moves from the Roman Catholic faith to the Eastern Orthodox faith, does he need to be re-baptized, or the EOC recognizes the RCC's baptism as a valid Sacrament?

Some RCs want to be re-baptized to experience full immersion rather than having water poured over their head.  I know a former RC who insisted on being re-baptized even though Chrismation would have sufficed.

Third Question : Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Yes.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,980
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2012, 08:06:33 PM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.

The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council disagree with you.

No, they most surely do not.

Also, there is the issue of whether that canon is authentic. That is alluded to in the book "I Confess One Baptism," but it is no matter for purposes here. No local Orthodox Church ever said there was sacramental grace outside the Orthodox Church before the Russian Holy Synod in the 18th century. There may be the form of baptism (triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which chrismation supplies the grace to fill up, but it is not baptism). Reception into the Church by means other than baptism is NOT a validation of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 08:07:11 PM by Shanghaiski »
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2012, 12:05:02 AM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.

The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council disagree with you.

No, they most surely do not.

Also, there is the issue of whether that canon is authentic. That is alluded to in the book "I Confess One Baptism," but it is no matter for purposes here. No local Orthodox Church ever said there was sacramental grace outside the Orthodox Church before the Russian Holy Synod in the 18th century. There may be the form of baptism (triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which chrismation supplies the grace to fill up, but it is not baptism). Reception into the Church by means other than baptism is NOT a validation of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.

You write that as if this theory of empty forms being filled is somehow not an innovation, while passing off the Russian understanding as an innovation. But what fathers before St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain taught this theory of empty forms? Furthermore, whether the canon (I assume you are disputing the canon which deals with the reception of Novatianists into the Church) from the First Ecumenical Council is authentic matters little, because there are canons from First Constantinople and Trullo which state to the same effect that Novatianists are not received by baptism.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,980
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2012, 12:36:11 AM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.

The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council disagree with you.

No, they most surely do not.

Also, there is the issue of whether that canon is authentic. That is alluded to in the book "I Confess One Baptism," but it is no matter for purposes here. No local Orthodox Church ever said there was sacramental grace outside the Orthodox Church before the Russian Holy Synod in the 18th century. There may be the form of baptism (triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which chrismation supplies the grace to fill up, but it is not baptism). Reception into the Church by means other than baptism is NOT a validation of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.

You write that as if this theory of empty forms being filled is somehow not an innovation, while passing off the Russian understanding as an innovation. But what fathers before St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain taught this theory of empty forms? Furthermore, whether the canon (I assume you are disputing the canon which deals with the reception of Novatianists into the Church) from the First Ecumenical Council is authentic matters little, because there are canons from First Constantinople and Trullo which state to the same effect that Novatianists are not received by baptism.

I never said the theory of the empty forms was traditional. Frankly, I'm not sure when and where it comes from. And the Russian position is quite new since they're on record actually accepting sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2012, 01:39:59 AM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.

The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council disagree with you.

No, they most surely do not.

Also, there is the issue of whether that canon is authentic. That is alluded to in the book "I Confess One Baptism," but it is no matter for purposes here. No local Orthodox Church ever said there was sacramental grace outside the Orthodox Church before the Russian Holy Synod in the 18th century. There may be the form of baptism (triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which chrismation supplies the grace to fill up, but it is not baptism). Reception into the Church by means other than baptism is NOT a validation of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.

You write that as if this theory of empty forms being filled is somehow not an innovation, while passing off the Russian understanding as an innovation. But what fathers before St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain taught this theory of empty forms? Furthermore, whether the canon (I assume you are disputing the canon which deals with the reception of Novatianists into the Church) from the First Ecumenical Council is authentic matters little, because there are canons from First Constantinople and Trullo which state to the same effect that Novatianists are not received by baptism.

I never said the theory of the empty forms was traditional. Frankly, I'm not sure when and where it comes from. And the Russian position is quite new since they're on record actually accepting sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.

But historically, Latins were not received by baptism. And the Russian position, at least as Patriarch Sergei expressed it, does not involve recognizing sacraments outside of the Church, but rather it recognizes that heretics do not cut themselves entirely off from the Church before Church does so by declaring that they are to be rebaptized, because there are no such things as self-effecting canons in Orthodoxy. It is simply not factual that the acceptance of Roman Catholics by confession leads to the conclusion that sacraments exist outside of the Church.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2012, 08:55:50 PM »
The creed states "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins".  Yes, his infant baptism will be valid.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,980
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2012, 11:57:57 PM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.

The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council disagree with you.

No, they most surely do not.

Also, there is the issue of whether that canon is authentic. That is alluded to in the book "I Confess One Baptism," but it is no matter for purposes here. No local Orthodox Church ever said there was sacramental grace outside the Orthodox Church before the Russian Holy Synod in the 18th century. There may be the form of baptism (triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which chrismation supplies the grace to fill up, but it is not baptism). Reception into the Church by means other than baptism is NOT a validation of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.

You write that as if this theory of empty forms being filled is somehow not an innovation, while passing off the Russian understanding as an innovation. But what fathers before St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain taught this theory of empty forms? Furthermore, whether the canon (I assume you are disputing the canon which deals with the reception of Novatianists into the Church) from the First Ecumenical Council is authentic matters little, because there are canons from First Constantinople and Trullo which state to the same effect that Novatianists are not received by baptism.

I never said the theory of the empty forms was traditional. Frankly, I'm not sure when and where it comes from. And the Russian position is quite new since they're on record actually accepting sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.

But historically, Latins were not received by baptism. And the Russian position, at least as Patriarch Sergei expressed it, does not involve recognizing sacraments outside of the Church, but rather it recognizes that heretics do not cut themselves entirely off from the Church before Church does so by declaring that they are to be rebaptized, because there are no such things as self-effecting canons in Orthodoxy. It is simply not factual that the acceptance of Roman Catholics by confession leads to the conclusion that sacraments exist outside of the Church.

Elsewhere on this forum are several mentions, mosty by Fr. Ambrose, that the Russian Church has, since the 18th century, recognized the Roman Catholic sacraments. That's what I was referring to.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2012, 12:42:54 AM »
1) Yes. Baptism remains. He will probably be re-chrismated.

2) It depends. In the Russian tradition RC's won't be rebaptised. Since 1755 the Greeks do rebaptise RC's but I do not know to what extend this is still done today.

3) Yep. Although God can save whom He chooses.

Baptizing heterodox is not rebaptism.

The Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council disagree with you.

No, they most surely do not.

Also, there is the issue of whether that canon is authentic. That is alluded to in the book "I Confess One Baptism," but it is no matter for purposes here. No local Orthodox Church ever said there was sacramental grace outside the Orthodox Church before the Russian Holy Synod in the 18th century. There may be the form of baptism (triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which chrismation supplies the grace to fill up, but it is not baptism). Reception into the Church by means other than baptism is NOT a validation of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.

You write that as if this theory of empty forms being filled is somehow not an innovation, while passing off the Russian understanding as an innovation. But what fathers before St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain taught this theory of empty forms? Furthermore, whether the canon (I assume you are disputing the canon which deals with the reception of Novatianists into the Church) from the First Ecumenical Council is authentic matters little, because there are canons from First Constantinople and Trullo which state to the same effect that Novatianists are not received by baptism.

I never said the theory of the empty forms was traditional. Frankly, I'm not sure when and where it comes from. And the Russian position is quite new since they're on record actually accepting sacraments outside the Orthodox Church.

But historically, Latins were not received by baptism. And the Russian position, at least as Patriarch Sergei expressed it, does not involve recognizing sacraments outside of the Church, but rather it recognizes that heretics do not cut themselves entirely off from the Church before Church does so by declaring that they are to be rebaptized, because there are no such things as self-effecting canons in Orthodoxy. It is simply not factual that the acceptance of Roman Catholics by confession leads to the conclusion that sacraments exist outside of the Church.

Elsewhere on this forum are several mentions, mosty by Fr. Ambrose, that the Russian Church has, since the 18th century, recognized the Roman Catholic sacraments. That's what I was referring to.

Well, yes, but that comes with some theological qualifications. It does not at all mean that there exist sacraments outside of the Church.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2012, 02:56:48 AM »

Third Question : Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Yes.

I am feeling confused. If baptism is necessary for salvation, why did Paul say that he did not come to baptize, but to preach the Gospel?

1 Corinthians 1:17  ►

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

According to the Orthodox Church, what did Paul actually mean in this verse?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 03:00:28 AM by kx9 »

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,078
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2012, 03:55:36 AM »
I think the answer can be found elsewhere in the writings of/about Paul, such as later in First Corinthians:

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" 1 Cor. 12:28-30

Different people had different roles. Some people had multiple roles. Apparently baptizing wasn't a primary role of St. Paul as he only did it a few times. We know that St. Paul traveled with others on missionary journeys, so perhaps it was they who baptized and did other such ministries while St. Paul focused on preaching.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Re-baptism
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2012, 07:38:00 AM »

Third Question : Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Yes.

I am feeling confused. If baptism is necessary for salvation, why did Paul say that he did not come to baptize, but to preach the Gospel?

1 Corinthians 1:17  ►

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

According to the Orthodox Church, what did Paul actually mean in this verse?

In context, Paul is criticizing the Corinthians for breaking up into sects based different figureheads. In verse 15, he expresses his gratitude that he baptized none of them, save a few, lest they should form a cult around him, claiming to have been baptized in his name. He was not sent to baptize, not because baptism is not important for salvation, but because any apostle or presbyter could perform baptisms, while few have the gift of being able to preach the gospel as Paul did. And in the case of those who do possess the charisma to preach like Paul, it is better that they do not baptize many people, lest their charisma should cause for a sect to form under their name.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.