OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 10:14:59 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New conversion concerns (baptism, Eucharist)  (Read 2430 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
coC2O
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Self-ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of N. America
Jurisdiction: Wichita and Mid-America
Posts: 6


« on: June 06, 2009, 10:32:05 PM »

This is my first post here, so hello..

I was born into and infant 'pour' baptized (in the name of the Trinity) in the RCC, and after speaking with my new Orthodox priest, he said that I would not need to be re-baptized. It seems his biggest concern was that I was baptized in the name of the trinity. He said I must go through a year of catechesis and then be Chrismated. I'm going to be obedient to his directives and I'm OK with that, but my concern was about my RCC baptism and not having been immersed (much less not trine immersion). I guess I was a little confused as to why I shouldn't/couldn't be re-baptized correctly?

The second concern is with the Eucharist. My heart says that Jesus is the good leaven and His body and blood are transformational to us, but it seems that if the Last Supper was a Passover celebration, Jesus certainly used unleavened bread. Again, everything in my SENSES feels like Jesus is rather the good leaven, but I guess I'm looking for scriptural proofs on using leavened bread for the Eucharist. It is indeed odd that the RCC uses unleavened bread, yet uses fermented wine (you'd think it would be 'unleavened & grape juice' or 'leavened & wine', as the Orthodox use). Again, is there some good scipture that shows leavened bread was intended?

BTW, I am very much looking forward to my first communion in the Orthodox Church. When I saw the scriptural backing for theosis, the proper (and scriptural) veneration of the Theotokos, the early use of icons, the much deeper meaning in the Divine Liturgy, and the scriptural meaning of heaven and hell (as opposed to the Dante's Inferno definition), I knew I had found the truth. The tipping point for me was the fact that the Orthodox don't ascribe to the RCC definition of "original sin", yet they (we) still baptize infants.

I am so glad I was directed to this forum. I'm looking forward to many inspirational coversations and can see this is a great place to learn about the Lord's church.


Blessings to all..


« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 10:35:17 PM by coC2O » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,904


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2009, 11:32:39 PM »

Welcome to the forum!

I think it is common to not re-baptize. I've been told that the chrism you are annointed with will "cure" any defects in your original baptism.  I'm sure that others will correct me if I am wrong about this.

The leaven in the bread represents Christ's resurrection, as the Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is the resurrected Body and Blood of Christ.  Also, I think there is some disagreement over whether the Last Supper was really during the Passover.

Again, I know that others more knowledgeable than I will add to this and correct anything I got wrong.   Smiley
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,633



« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2009, 11:43:37 PM »

This is my first post here, so hello..

Welcome!

Quote
I was born into and infant 'pour' baptized (in the name of the Trinity) in the RCC, and after speaking with my new Orthodox priest, he said that I would not need to be re-baptized. It seems his biggest concern was that I was baptized in the name of the trinity. He said I must go through a year of catechesis and then be Chrismated. I'm going to be obedient to his directives and I'm OK with that, but my concern was about my RCC baptism and not having been immersed (much less not trine immersion). I guess I was a little confused as to why I shouldn't/couldn't be re-baptized correctly?

The praxis of this is debated: what you are doing is correct, obeying the bishop's directive.

As to the form, yes the correct way of doing it is by immersion, not to be laid aside except in grave circumstances: in your case, a non-Orthodox doing it.  St. Constantine was baptized by sprinkling by a crypto-(and maybe not so hidden)Arian.  The Church from the time of the Didache has accepted the exception of affusion.  The problem with the RCC is that they made the exception the rule.  No baptism, however, has ever been accepted that was not done in the Name of the Most Holy Trinity.

Quote
The second concern is with the Eucharist. My heart says that Jesus is the good leaven and His body and blood are transformational to us, but it seems that if the Last Supper was a Passover celebration, Jesus certainly used unleavened bread. Again, everything in my SENSES feels like Jesus is rather the good leaven, but I guess I'm looking for scriptural proofs on using leavened bread for the Eucharist. It is indeed odd that the RCC uses unleavened bread, yet uses fermented wine (you'd think it would be 'unleavened & grape juice' or 'leavened & wine', as the Orthodox use).

The word used is "artos," which means (levened) bread.  Unleavened bread is azymos.

The problem is that St. John places Christ on the cross at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, which occurs before the seder (hence the lamb at seder).  There is the last meal before the day of the Passover, the Removal of the Leaven, the Preparation Day, in which the last of the leavened bread was used up.  More importantly, the practice of the Church from earliest times has been leavened, and was so in the West for centuries.


Quote
Again, is there some good scipture that shows leavened bread was intended?
1 Cor. 5:6-8


Quote
I am so glad I was directed to this forum. I'm looking forward to many inspirational coversations and can see this is a great place to learn about the Lord's church.


I hope we meet your expectations.



[/quote]
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
coC2O
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Self-ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of N. America
Jurisdiction: Wichita and Mid-America
Posts: 6


« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2009, 01:51:41 AM »

Welcome to the forum!

I think it is common to not re-baptize. I've been told that the chrism you are annointed with will "cure" any defects in your original baptism.  I'm sure that others will correct me if I am wrong about this.

The leaven in the bread represents Christ's resurrection, as the Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is the resurrected Body and Blood of Christ.  Also, I think there is some disagreement over whether the Last Supper was really during the Passover.

Again, I know that others more knowledgeable than I will add to this and correct anything I got wrong.   Smiley
I've heard something to that effect on the Last Supper not being on the day of Passover, but have seen or heard nothing about the chrism curing any lack in a past baptism (though that sounds to fall in line with some of the reasons we're chrismated). Thanks for your quick answer.
Logged
coC2O
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Self-ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of N. America
Jurisdiction: Wichita and Mid-America
Posts: 6


« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2009, 04:31:10 AM »


Welcome!
Thank you.

Quote
The praxis of this is debated: what you are doing is correct, obeying the bishop's directive.
And I thankfully have a very knowledgeable priest.

Quote
As to the form, yes the correct way of doing it is by immersion, not to be laid aside except in grave circumstances: in your case, a non-Orthodox doing it.  St. Constantine was baptized by sprinkling by a crypto-(and maybe not so hidden)Arian.  The Church from the time of the Didache has accepted the exception of affusion.  The problem with the RCC is that they made the exception the rule.  No baptism, however, has ever been accepted that was not done in the Name of the Most Holy Trinity.
So THAT'S how the RCC got that. Interesting. I feel bad for the RCC because they were forcefully separated from the East, and it was the Roman Empire that led/forced the Crusades. I saw that some (most?) of the Roman Patriarchate actually sought refuge in the East when the Franks swooped down from the north. I suppose the ones who stayed behind fell victim to the political rule, and thus began the march toward papal infallibility/rule.

Quote
The word used is "artos," which means (levened) bread.  Unleavened bread is azymos.
Never knew that. Apparently the RCC originally used leavened bread for the first 8 centuries, as well. Incredible that they would suddenly change that.

Quote
The problem is that St. John places Christ on the cross at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, which occurs before the seder (hence the lamb at seder).  There is the last meal before the day of the Passover, the Removal of the Leaven, the Preparation Day, in which the last of the leavened bread was used up.  More importantly, the practice of the Church from earliest times has been leavened, and was so in the West for centuries.
See this now, as well. It's amazing that the EOC has kept the truest tradition through so many centuries of upheaval/change in other places.

Quote
1 Cor. 5:6-8
Together with Matt 16:12, makes perfect sense.



Quote
I hope we meet your expectations.
Thanks so much for that help. A few quick searches verified all.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2009, 04:52:32 AM »

Dear coC2O,

Welcome to the forum.    Smiley

Just a word about leavened and unleavened bread for the Eucharist.   Scholars say that we shall never really know what was used at the Last Supper.  Matthew, Mark and Luke favour unleavenrd bread, but John favours leavened.  So we just have to resign ourselves to not knowing.

All the same there is an age-long tradtion in the Church to use leavened bread. 

Please have a look at this small message in another thread.  It is an eye-opener.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13141.msg272267.html#msg272267

CATHOLIC SCHOLARS SAY THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME USED LEAVENED BREAD
for the first 800 and more years.


The change to unleavened bread in Rome took place towards the end of the first millennium.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 04:55:48 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Thomas
Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,712



« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2009, 09:45:35 AM »


I was born into and infant 'pour' baptized (in the name of the Trinity) in the RCC, and after speaking with my new Orthodox priest, he said that I would not need to be re-baptized. It seems his biggest concern was that I was baptized in the name of the trinity. He said I must go through a year of catechesis and then be Chrismated. I'm going to be obedient to his directives and I'm OK with that, but my concern was about my RCC baptism and not having been immersed (much less not trine immersion). I guess I was a little confused as to why I shouldn't/couldn't be re-baptized correctly?


There are several views on this points all based upon the interpretation of Ecumenical Council decisions or Local Synodal decisions. Both the Greek and Antiochian traditions lean toward the acceptance of Trinitarian Baptism when the Holy Trinity is defined as the Orthodox Christians define the Trinity and generally include mainline Heterodox Protestant and Roman Catholic denominations (That means we do not accept the Baptism of the LDS Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Salvation Army etc).  The Moscow Patriarchate has in the past accepted Heterodox Trinitarian Baptism however there is a current movement (especially since ROCOR came home to the MP) to lean more on the side of re-baptism of the Heterodox.  Many Eastern Europen Orthodox Churches re-baptize from my encounters with them, but is also a local issue even in those local churches. Most Old Calendarist (non-SCOBA groups in the US) endorse re-baptism as do the Monks on or affiliated with Mount Athos or the Athonite tradition generally.

Every Priest baptizes and Chrismates or Chrismates only under the omophorion or authority of the local bishop. He will know what his bishop (who has the Charisma to determine what the Holy Spirit wishes the church to do in any case) wishes him to accomplish in  each case. Traditionally, a bishop  would make the decision based upon the information given him by the local priest, this individual decision is known as economia. The direction currently given in the Greek and Antiochian Churches on this matter seem to be accross the board that all Heterodox with their previous baptisms done in the name of the Holy Trinity (wit the exception of those noted above) will be Chrismated only.  THe OCA and the other jurisidctions tend to  offer economia  on an individual basis in these cases with some Bishops  requiring both baptism and chrismation while other OCA bishops will allow the economia of chrismation alone. In obedience every priest should bring a person into the church utilizing the  methods required by his bishop. Ask your priest if you are concerned about the issue, he should be able to explain his bishop's decision in detail to you.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2009, 11:42:17 PM »

The second concern is with the Eucharist. My heart says that Jesus is the good leaven and His body and blood are transformational to us, but it seems that if the Last Supper was a Passover celebration, Jesus certainly used unleavened bread. Again, everything in my SENSES feels like Jesus is rather the good leaven, but I guess I'm looking for scriptural proofs on using leavened bread for the Eucharist. It is indeed odd that the RCC uses unleavened bread, yet uses fermented wine (you'd think it would be 'unleavened & grape juice' or 'leavened & wine', as the Orthodox use). Again, is there some good scipture that shows
I don't understand your reasoning. Could you expand on this?
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Peleg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox member
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 65



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2009, 01:52:55 AM »

This is my first post here, so hello..

I was born into and infant 'pour' baptized (in the name of the Trinity) in the RCC, and after speaking with my new Orthodox priest, he said that I would not need to be re-baptized. It seems his biggest concern was that I was baptized in the name of the trinity. He said I must go through a year of catechesis and then be Chrismated. I'm going to be obedient to his directives and I'm OK with that, but my concern was about my RCC baptism and not having been immersed (much less not trine immersion). I guess I was a little confused as to why I shouldn't/couldn't be re-baptized correctly?

The second concern is with the Eucharist. My heart says that Jesus is the good leaven and His body and blood are transformational to us, but it seems that if the Last Supper was a Passover celebration, Jesus certainly used unleavened bread. Again, everything in my SENSES feels like Jesus is rather the good leaven, but I guess I'm looking for scriptural proofs on using leavened bread for the Eucharist. It is indeed odd that the RCC uses unleavened bread, yet uses fermented wine (you'd think it would be 'unleavened & grape juice' or 'leavened & wine', as the Orthodox use). Again, is there some good scipture that shows leavened bread was intended?

BTW, I am very much looking forward to my first communion in the Orthodox Church. When I saw the scriptural backing for theosis, the proper (and scriptural) veneration of the Theotokos, the early use of icons, the much deeper meaning in the Divine Liturgy, and the scriptural meaning of heaven and hell (as opposed to the Dante's Inferno definition), I knew I had found the truth. The tipping point for me was the fact that the Orthodox don't ascribe to the RCC definition of "original sin", yet they (we) still baptize infants.

I am so glad I was directed to this forum. I'm looking forward to many inspirational coversations and can see this is a great place to learn about the Lord's church.


Blessings to all..




Hey there!!  Welcome.  Glad you followed my trail here.
Logged
coC2O
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Self-ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of N. America
Jurisdiction: Wichita and Mid-America
Posts: 6


« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2009, 01:57:56 PM »

Hey there!!  Welcome.  Glad you followed my trail here.

An excellent recommendation. Learning a lot looking through all the posts.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 01:58:18 PM by coC2O » Logged
coC2O
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Self-ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of N. America
Jurisdiction: Wichita and Mid-America
Posts: 6


« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2009, 02:02:07 PM »

The second concern is with the Eucharist. My heart says that Jesus is the good leaven and His body and blood are transformational to us, but it seems that if the Last Supper was a Passover celebration, Jesus certainly used unleavened bread. Again, everything in my SENSES feels like Jesus is rather the good leaven, but I guess I'm looking for scriptural proofs on using leavened bread for the Eucharist. It is indeed odd that the RCC uses unleavened bread, yet uses fermented wine (you'd think it would be 'unleavened & grape juice' or 'leavened & wine', as the Orthodox use). Again, is there some good scipture that shows
I don't understand your reasoning. Could you expand on this?


Here's a link that explains it much better than I could.

http://www.prosphora.org/page27.html
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2009, 12:53:22 AM »

(you'd think it would be 'unleavened & grape juice' or 'leavened & wine', as the Orthodox use). 
That link didn't answer my question. I was just curious as to why you are linking the two (Unleavened bread and grape juice)

I don't see the correlation between unleavened bread and grape juice. Your statement seems to imply that the Eastern Orthodox way maintains the absolute proper pattern.

 It's obvious that the RC Church has its own theological reasons for using unleavened bread. As a result, they don't abide by EO theology concerning this issue. That's why your reasoning had me like this>>> Undecided

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
cobweb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32



« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2009, 10:48:50 AM »

I wouldn't worry too much about your baptism.  My 6 year old son is about to be baptized (Orthodox... of course) and it will likely be by pouring.  He wants to be baptized, but he is absolutely terrified of being dunked under the water.   He won't even go near a swimming pool or near anything deeper than a bathtub.

 The plan right now is to have him sit in the water and instead of being fully immersed, he will have water poured over his head.  It isn't ideal, but he'll still be considered baptised and able to commune.
Logged
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2009, 01:44:21 PM »

I wouldn't worry too much about your baptism.  My 6 year old son is about to be baptized (Orthodox... of course) and it will likely be by pouring.  He wants to be baptized, but he is absolutely terrified of being dunked under the water.   He won't even go near a swimming pool or near anything deeper than a bathtub.

 The plan right now is to have him sit in the water and instead of being fully immersed, he will have water poured over his head.  It isn't ideal, but he'll still be considered baptised and able to commune.
He doesn't need to be immersed according to EO tradition?
Just wondering.
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
cobweb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32



« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2009, 01:51:19 PM »

He doesn't need to be immersed according to EO tradition?
Just wondering.

Ideally, yes... but exceptions can be made in special circumstances.   Because he is so terrified of the water, out of mercy he will not be completely immersed.
Logged
Tags: communion baptism  eucharist 
Pages: 1   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 0.076 seconds with 42 queries.