Topic: Recognition of Catholic and Protestant Baptism?

[stanley123]

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly.

If Oriental Orthodox are not baptized, why are they allowed to regularly receive Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox church?

As IrishHermit pointed out, different ways of accepting (different types of) heterodox exist. By economy, OOs are sometimes received by perhaps confession only, perhaps. I'm not even saying I think this is a good practice, just admitting that it happens. Certainly the EOC does not generally believe that OOs who persist in heterodoxy have efficacious baptisms etc., but their baptisms having a valid form, can be perfected by economy without physically reimmersing them.

But what if they want to remain OO, but receive Holy Communion in an EO Church? Once you receive Holy Communion in an EO Church *regularly*, aren't you then an EO  and no longer an OO ?

[Shlomlokh]

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly.

If Oriental Orthodox are not baptized, why are they allowed to regularly receive Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox church?

Who said they weren't baptized?

In Christ,
Andrew

[Shlomlokh]

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly.

If Oriental Orthodox are not baptized, why are they allowed to regularly receive Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox church?

As IrishHermit pointed out, different ways of accepting (different types of) heterodox exist. By economy, OOs are sometimes received by perhaps confession only, perhaps. I'm not even saying I think this is a good practice, just admitting that it happens. Certainly the EOC does not generally believe that OOs who persist in heterodoxy have efficacious baptisms etc., but their baptisms having a valid form, can be perfected by economy without physically reimmersing them.

But what if they want to remain OO, but receive Holy Communion in an EO Church? Once you receive Holy Communion in an EO Church *regularly*, aren't you then an EO  and no longer an OO ?

Before there was a Syriac Orthodox mission in my town, some of the faithful approached my priest at a fair and asked if they could receive communion at our mission (Bulgarian diocese). He said they would as long as they had permission from their bishop. Apparently our bishop permits it, so long as the OO bishop agrees. We have had at least one Ethiopian Orthodox commune at our mission that I know of.

In Christ,
Andrew

[ialmisry]

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!!   For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith.  They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

It still happens that way and the eastern Catholics who do it that way go blissfully back and forth between Catholic and Orthodox Churches with their families.   When they are in LA they go to their Orthodox parish and when they come here they attend their old baptismal Catholic parish, for example.

Some folks already have the best of both worlds and nobody complains...nobody gets excited...life just goes on as it should...I think.

Mary

As a matter of interest, have you experienced this personally in your walk as a Ruthenian Catholic?  How is it done?  Is it done openly, or furtively?   Have you, or the others you mention, referred this to the bishops or to their spiritual fathers?

Quite openly.  There is no need to tell anyone.  It is simply accepted as the way of things.  It is a non-issue except with respect to the salvation of souls and that is not in the public domain.

The attitude is that it happens in other parts of the world so it happens here.  There's an underlying attitude that is expressed by the thinking that once the muddle gets straightened out and there's resumed communion then they are already ahead of the game.  And that attitude exists on both sides, although I know more Catholic pastors who get a little miffed by it, simply because they are not fond of Orthodoxy.

Not everyone is as convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church of Heresies, a mere RCRO.  But there are strong disincentives to talking about it all too openly...if you know what I mean.  Do other bishops know?  I expect so.  I suspect so. 

I don't participate because the duplicity on both sides annoys me.  I think we should simply resume communion and resolve our differences since most of them are highly resolvable.

M.

I know of similar reception of Protestants to your communion, although they still remain Protestants.  So, are you one with the Protestants too?

[deusveritasest]

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly.

If Oriental Orthodox are not baptized, why are they allowed to regularly receive Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox church?

Actually, it's not entirely for the reason that JLatimer presented, but rather because many on both sides of that divide (Byzantine & Oriental) are coming to the conclusion the other party is actually orthodox, and many among those, unfortunately, are concluding that the other party has efficacious ordinances.

[deusveritasest]

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly.

If Oriental Orthodox are not baptized, why are they allowed to regularly receive Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox church?

Who said they weren't baptized?

In Christ,
Andrew

How could the Orientals be Baptized if they are heretical or schismatic?

[stanley123]

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly.

If Oriental Orthodox are not baptized, why are they allowed to regularly receive Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox church?

Who said they weren't baptized?

In Christ,
Andrew

Are you paying attention, or am I missing something here?

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

Orthodox in this context refers to Eastern Orthodox, does it not? And not OO ?

[Shanghaiski]

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly.

If Oriental Orthodox are not baptized, why are they allowed to regularly receive Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox church?

Who said they weren't baptized?

In Christ,
Andrew

Are you paying attention, or am I missing something here?

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

Orthodox in this context refers to Eastern Orthodox, does it not? And not OO ?

I am given to understand the context somewhat depends on the confession of the writer. I've always found that confusing. While I don't particularly like the modifier "Eastern," I can see how using "Eastern Orthodox," "Oriental Orthodox," and "Roman Catholic"--whether Eastern, Byzantine, or whatever, would help to avoid confusion amongst groups who claim to be Orthodox and Catholic.

[deusveritasest]

No longer being of the Byzantine communion, this question doesn't really apply to me.

As I understand your perception of your present spiritual situation it is altogether unique.   You do not believe you have received baptism (I suppose that makes you an unbaptized pagan enquiring into Christianity.)  Nor have you ever had the experience of receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour since such is not found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  As I say, it is a unique situation you inhabit and a unique way of perceiving your spiritual state.  I pray that you worrisome pagan state will be resolved soon.

Given that I view the Byzantine tradition as lacking loyal and authentic orthodox doctrinal continuity, I think it would be fair to apply the same reasoning for that background as we are in this thread for the Romans. No, I did not receive an efficacious Baptism or Chrismation or Communion or Confession (the few times in a year that I did that).


Because of my issues with the Agreed Statements, it is taking significantly longer than I had hoped.

On the other hand, "pagan" is harsh enough of a terminology that I would not apply it to my Byzantine background, as if there were no substantial difference in relationship to the Holy Trinity between it and Odin worship.

[deusveritasest]

He said, "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." What this has to do with joint prayer is beyond me, since the will of the green ink has barred further discussion on the matter baptism of Christian "converts."

I mean I do not have to be baptized again, my baptism is valid.
May the Love of Christ be upon you.

Your "baptism" has valid form but is illegitimate, illicit, and inefficacious.

[stanley123]

He said, "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." What this has to do with joint prayer is beyond me, since the will of the green ink has barred further discussion on the matter baptism of Christian "converts."

I mean I do not have to be baptized again, my baptism is valid.
May the Love of Christ be upon you.

Your "baptism" has valid form but is illegitimate, illicit, and inefficacious.

So in other words, according to you , Roman Catholics are not really baptised Christians? So from that point of view, Buddhists, Hindhus, Jews and Roman Catholics are all unbaptised.

[deusveritasest]

He said, "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." What this has to do with joint prayer is beyond me, since the will of the green ink has barred further discussion on the matter baptism of Christian "converts."

I mean I do not have to be baptized again, my baptism is valid.
May the Love of Christ be upon you.

Your "baptism" has valid form but is illegitimate, illicit, and inefficacious.

So in other words, according to you , Roman Catholics are not really baptised Christians? So from that point of view, Buddhists, Hindhus, Jews and Roman Catholics are all unbaptised.

You are "baptized" in the sense because you have received the form of the Church's Sacrament. You are all unbaptized in the sense that none of you have received the effect of the Church's Baptism.

[stanley123]

He said, "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." What this has to do with joint prayer is beyond me, since the will of the green ink has barred further discussion on the matter baptism of Christian "converts."

I mean I do not have to be baptized again, my baptism is valid.
May the Love of Christ be upon you.

Your "baptism" has valid form but is illegitimate, illicit, and inefficacious.

So in other words, according to you , Roman Catholics are not really baptised Christians? So from that point of view, Buddhists, Hindhus, Jews and Roman Catholics are all unbaptised.

You are "baptized" in the sense because you have received the form of the Church's Sacrament. You are all unbaptized in the sense that none of you have received the effect of the Church's Baptism.

Is it any good to receive the form of Baptism but not the effect?

[ICXCNIKA]

He said, "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." What this has to do with joint prayer is beyond me, since the will of the green ink has barred further discussion on the matter baptism of Christian "converts."

I mean I do not have to be baptized again, my baptism is valid.
May the Love of Christ be upon you.

Your "baptism" has valid form but is illegitimate, illicit, and inefficacious.

So in other words, according to you , Roman Catholics are not really baptised Christians? So from that point of view, Buddhists, Hindhus, Jews and Roman Catholics are all unbaptised.

You are "baptized" in the sense because you have received the form of the Church's Sacrament. You are all unbaptized in the sense that none of you have received the effect of the Church's Baptism.

Is it any good to receive the form of Baptism but not the effect?

I would like to ask a different question:
Is it any good to receive the form of Baptism outside of the Church? Can someone that hasn't been baptised into the Church baptise someone else? I am seriously interested not trying to be argumentative.

[elijahmaria]

I am not sure why Catholics would even bother to respond to this particular topic.

The Catholic Church has graced sacraments and anyone who says differently bears false witness...

Period.

Mary

[tuesdayschild]

I am not sure why Catholics would even bother to respond to this particular topic.

And yet...

[deusveritasest]

He said, "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." What this has to do with joint prayer is beyond me, since the will of the green ink has barred further discussion on the matter baptism of Christian "converts."

I mean I do not have to be baptized again, my baptism is valid.
May the Love of Christ be upon you.

Your "baptism" has valid form but is illegitimate, illicit, and inefficacious.

So in other words, according to you , Roman Catholics are not really baptised Christians? So from that point of view, Buddhists, Hindhus, Jews and Roman Catholics are all unbaptised.

You are "baptized" in the sense because you have received the form of the Church's Sacrament. You are all unbaptized in the sense that none of you have received the effect of the Church's Baptism.

Is it any good to receive the form of Baptism but not the effect?

In light of knowing where the effectual Baptism is? No, that would be rather harmful.

In light of only knowing that community as the best expression of Christianity? I imagine there might be some good in that. Perhaps it as an expression of faith could even be an antecedent to the fullness of redemption. The "baptism" itself may have some good effect, (exactly in what manner I don't really know) but it would not be redeeming.

[deusveritasest]

I would like to ask a different question:
Is it any good to receive the form of Baptism outside of the Church? Can someone that hasn't been baptised into the Church baptise someone else? I am seriously interested not trying to be argumentative.

We are assuming that these "baptisms" would not be effectual. Yet your questions seem to bring that into question. So they don't really apply. No, we've already established that "baptisms" with proper form outside the Church can have no redeeming effect in themselves.

[deusveritasest]

The Catholic Church has graced sacraments and anyone who says differently bears false witness...

Yes, you're right, the Catholic Church does have redeeming, grace, effectual Sacraments.

But we aren't talking about the Catholic Church right now.

[ICXCNIKA]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I understand your and my position I was asking the gentleman that I partially qouted to get his understanding. Thank you for responding though as usual I find your posts helpful.

I would like to ask a different question:
Is it any good to receive the form of Baptism outside of the Church? Can someone that hasn't been baptised into the Church baptise someone else? I am seriously interested not trying to be argumentative.

We are assuming that these "baptisms" would not be effectual. Yet your questions seem to bring that into question. So they don't really apply. No, we've already established that "baptisms" with proper form outside the Church can have no redeeming effect in themselves.

[stanley123]

I am not sure why Catholics would even bother to respond to this particular topic.

If a Catholic is interested in the Orthodox Church, he might want to know what the Orthodox Christians believe about Catholics and their Sacraments. As you know, it is not too nice.   

[Irish Hermit]

I am not sure why Catholics would even bother to respond to this particular topic.

The Catholic Church has graced sacraments and anyone who says differently bears false witness...

Period.

You are in the position of the Anglicans who also claim to have graced sacraments and the Catholic Magisterium denies it.  In the eyes of the Vatican the Archbishop of Canterbury is no more than a baptized layman in fancy vestments.  I imagine the Anglicans would tell you that it is you who are bearing false witness.   

[Irish Hermit]

I am not sure why Catholics would even bother to respond to this particular topic.

If a Catholic is interested in the Orthodox Church, he might want to know what the Orthodox Christians believe about Catholics and their Sacraments. As you know, it is not too nice.   

Ditto of course for what the Catholics say about Anglican and Lutheran sacraments!   

And yet despite the awful things the Catholic Church says about these non-Catholic Churches and their sacraments, it does not seem to impede conversion from the Anglican and Lutheran Churches.

[stanley123]

I am not sure why Catholics would even bother to respond to this particular topic.

If a Catholic is interested in the Orthodox Church, he might want to know what the Orthodox Christians believe about Catholics and their Sacraments. As you know, it is not too nice.   

Ditto of course for what the Catholics say about Anglican and Lutheran sacraments!   

And yet despite the awful things the Catholic Church says about these non-Catholic Churches and their sacraments, it does not seem to impede conversion from the Anglican and Lutheran Churches.

The topic of the thread concerns Orthodox Recognition of Catholic and Protestant Baptism. As far as I know,  Catholics recognise the Baptism of Anglicans and Lutherans. They are baptised Christians in the eyes of the RCC.

[Irish Hermit]

The topic of the thread concerns Orthodox Recognition of Catholic and Protestant Baptism.

There are many angles from which this could be discussed.  But one simple and succinct summary of the Orthodox position is found in Message 41 in this thread.

[PeterTheAleut]

The Catholic Church has graced sacraments and anyone who says differently bears false witness...

Period.

And yet we violate the Ninth Commandment when we witness truthfully to our Tradition, the Tradition of St. Cyprian of North Africa and St. Firmilian of Asia Minor?  How dogmatic of you to assert such, Mary.  What authority do you have to say such things?

[synLeszka]

...which of course flows naturally and logically from the Orthodox understanding of what Sacraments in fact are.

Yesterday's epistle is actually quite relevant:

Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

I think that we are still at the level of the Apostle Paul's disciples.
"No, we are sons of St.Sava, we do not recognise the sons of St.Peter and Paul"
I am of st.Vladimir or I am son of St.Andrew or I am son of st. Efrem.

[Irish Hermit]

...which of course flows naturally and logically from the Orthodox understanding of what Sacraments in fact are.

Yesterday's epistle is actually quite relevant:

Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

I think that we are still at the level of the Apostle Paul's disciples.
"No, we are sons of St.Sava, we do not recognise the sons of St.Peter and Paul"
I am of st.Vladimir or I am son of St.Andrew or I am son of st. Efrem.

In the history of Christianity, among all the things which have been most emphatically stated, is that one must be in submission to the successor of Saint Peter in Rome in order to gain salvation.

This is quite quite different to those who say.  "I am a son of Saint Patrick,"  "I am a daughter of Saint Thomas or Saint James,"  "I am a child of Saint Sava."

[deusveritasest]

I am not sure why Catholics would even bother to respond to this particular topic.

If a Catholic is interested in the Orthodox Church, he might want to know what the Orthodox Christians believe about Catholics and their Sacraments. As you know, it is not too nice.   

"Nice" is irrelevant.

[deusveritasest]

In the eyes of the Vatican the Archbishop of Canterbury is no more than a baptized layman in fancy vestments.

I have been told that the matter of Anglican orders is becoming more and more complicated because of the infusion of Utrechtian ("Old Catholic") orders into their own ordinations, the Utrechtian orders of which I have been told that Rome recognizes.

[deusveritasest]

I am not sure why Catholics would even bother to respond to this particular topic.

If a Catholic is interested in the Orthodox Church, he might want to know what the Orthodox Christians believe about Catholics and their Sacraments. As you know, it is not too nice.   

Ditto of course for what the Catholics say about Anglican and Lutheran sacraments!   

And yet despite the awful things the Catholic Church says about these non-Catholic Churches and their sacraments, it does not seem to impede conversion from the Anglican and Lutheran Churches.

The topic of the thread concerns Orthodox Recognition of Catholic and Protestant Baptism. As far as I know,  Catholics recognise the Baptism of Anglicans and Lutherans. They are baptised Christians in the eyes of the RCC.

Only because you have a different understanding of the Sacraments overall.