Converting and choice of church

[carpo-rusyn]

Hello All,

I have a question not so much about why you converted but rather why did you select the particular church or jurisdiction you are in.  We have many who post on this board from across the Orthodox spectrum ranging from the more liberal (the new calendar loving ecumenists ) to the more conservative (if the Julian calendar was good enough for St Paul it's good enough for me types ).  I realize that it doesn't all hinge on the calendar you follow and I realize it's all Orthodox but why do some people end up in ROCOR, OCA, ACROD or ROAC?

I guess my second question is do those of you who came into Orthodoxy via a more liberal jurisdiction ever find themselves moving toward a more conservative one and vice versa?

Carpo-Rusyn

[Elisha]

Hello All,

I have a question not so much about why you converted but rather why did you select the particular church or jurisdiction you are in.  We have many who post on this board from across the Orthodox spectrum ranging from the more liberal (the new calendar loving ecumenists ) to the more conservative (if the Julian calendar was good enough for St Paul it's good enough for me types ).  I realize that it doesn't all hinge on the calendar you follow and I realize it's all Orthodox but why do some people end up in ROCOR, OCA, ACROD or ROAC?

I guess my second question is do those of you who came into Orthodoxy via a more liberal jurisdiction ever find themselves moving toward a more conservative one and vice versa?

Carpo-Rusyn

Grew up in a convert (former AEOM) Antiochian parish.  Currently attend an OCA parish in a different town far away but in the same state.  Attend this parish since a) it is the first parish I found (and closest) to me when I moved away from home and b) it is a really good parish.  Jurisdiction?  While I prefer the politics and internal workings of the OCA to others, I would have no qualms about attending a church in another jurisdiction provided I were to move (or my parish implodes or something).  It's more about the individual parish than a particular jurisdiction.

[Fr. David]

Seems to me there's a good give-and-take between the so-called "more conservative" and the "more liberal" jusrisdictions...I know a few who've gone to ROCOR from OCA and vice versa...that's just my experience.

Really, what it came down to with me was this: the two parishes available to me for chrismation were Antiochian and Greek.  There was a ROCOR parish several miles away, but it was, shall we say, so "interesting" that it made a few people join our Antiochian parish who, while remaining faithfully ROCOR, said that that ROCOR parish actually scared them.

I am now OCA because I feel more at home in the Russian tradition.  Why not one of the more "traditionalist" groups, like ROCOR?  IMO -- and I'm speaking in generalizations -- they really seem to be breaking off for reasons that don't warrant it, as in, they break communion with groups A, B and C who practice X (which they deem a heresy), yet maintain communion with groups D and E, who do not practice X, yet who nonetheless are in communion with A, B, and C!  Doesn't seem all that consistent -- doesn't an absence of criticism on the part of D and E imply a heretical agreement with A, B, and C? -- so I stick with OCA.

[Fr. David]

...this explanation was brought to you today by the letters A, B, C, O, R and X...

[JoeS]

First of all, I would like to take issue with the term ecuminist in the same breath with new calendarist.  I can assure you that as a member of the OCA I do not subscribe to ecumenism in any form that would compromise my faith.  That being said, I will proceed with the reasons for my choosing the OCA.

I came from a 50+ year stint with the RCC. In the last twenty or so years I saw and experienced things in the RCC that bothered me greatly. I decided to investigate to see if a more fuller expression of worship was out there that was lacking in my former faith.  The Orthodox Faith was one of the ones that I was considering.  The first Liturgy was enough to convince me that the Orthodox Faith and the english speaking parish of my OCA was the church I wanted to be in.

I am now a member of council, hours reader, altar server, and fill in choir as needed and I have to say extremely happy in my new Faith.  I have to be honest in that I have never ever felt this conviction of true Faith in the RCC as I do in the Orthodox Faith.

In Christ,

JoeS  

[Fr. David]

Good call, JoeS, with the distinction b/t NC-ist and ecumenist.

Why the OCA over others, though?  "What's your story?"  

[JoeS]

///Good call, JoeS, with the distinction b/t NC-ist and ecumenist.

Why the OCA over others, though?  "What's your story?" ///

I think the OCA represents the best chance of all the Orthodox jurisdictions becoming as one as our dear Lord and Saviour wanted.  The OCA also has a healthy diversity that is not always the norm in other jurisdictions.  The OCA represents a good cross section of America.  If the Orthodox church is to survive here it needs to look very much like what the OCA looks like now.  

JoeS  

[amnesiac99]

I did not have a great deal of choice in what jurisdiction I entered, nor was I aware of the various debates and internal fights over issues like the calendar and ecumenism. The only parish, known to me at the time, close to my hometown was a Greek parish, so that is where I went. The folks there welcomed me openly and with the love of Christ, which is why I have remained. I subsequently learned that there is also an Antiochian parish in the same town, but I really have no desire to switch.

If I had my choice of jurisdictions, I would probably select the Orthodox Church in America. In spite of the controversy over its status, I believe it to be the autocephalous church in the United States, and I also believe it to be the best hope for Orthodoxy unity in the Americas. The nearest OCA parish, unfortunately, is two and a half hours away, while my Greek parish is only forty-five minutes.

[JoeS]

///...nor was I aware of the various debates and internal fights over issues like the calendar and ecumenism.///

Dont get too involved with the calendarist controversy it dosnt have anything to do with our salvation.  The ecuminism thing is another animal.  It is always good to be watchful in those who are more concerned with the image of Orthodoxy than the truth of it's message.

Joes

[penelope]

I went with the Antiochene church because a)it's in English, and I don't understand any Eastern European languages and b)it's near to where I live.  As to the New Calendar, my church uses it.  Do I think it was a good idea initially, no.  I also think it was largely a power play by the EP.  On the other hand, I don't see the calendar as a big deal, and I find the attempt to make a dogmatic issue of it impossibly legalistic.

[penelope]

Also, I'm not an ecumenist.  While I think it's possible for non-Orthodox Christians to be saved, I don't think other churches are legitimate or part of the body of Christ, and that seems to be the standard view in my parish.

[Jennifer]

Seems to me there's a good give-and-take between the so-called "more conservative" and the "more liberal" jusrisdictions...I know a few who've gone to ROCOR from OCA and vice versa...that's just my experience.

Really, what it came down to with me was this: the two parishes available to me for chrismation were Antiochian and Greek.  There was a ROCOR parish several miles away, but it was, shall we say, so "interesting" that it made a few people join our Antiochian parish who, while remaining faithfully ROCOR, said that that ROCOR parish actually scared them.

I am now OCA because I feel more at home in the Russian tradition.  Why not one of the more "traditionalist" groups, like ROCOR?  IMO -- and I'm speaking in generalizations -- they really seem to be breaking off for reasons that don't warrant it, as in, they break communion with groups A, B and C who practice X (which they deem a heresy), yet maintain communion with groups D and E, who do not practice X, yet who nonetheless are in communion with A, B, and C!  Doesn't seem all that consistent -- doesn't an absence of criticism on the part of D and E imply a heretical agreement with A, B, and C? -- so I stick with OCA.

Pedro, I see from your profile that you converted in Tulsa.  I used to live in Tulsa and attended the Antiochian parish there several times (can't remember the name!).  I remember hearing that the ROCOR parish in Owasso was scary.  I think someone told me that they re-baptize converts but I had a brief on-line conversation with him and he it's decided on a case by case basis.  I didn't know who to believe and ended up moving from Tulsa anyway so it was moot.  I never could find the Owasso church anyway.  

[Elisha]

To be fair, I think there are many OCA, Antiochian, GOA (well at least one, before it unfortunately imploded) and possibly Serb and other parishes that are good cross-sections of the USA.  But I think it is just as possible to find very ethnic-like parishes in each of these jurisdictions that are too much ethnic club oriented (liturgy all in Russian, Greek or Arabic, sparse attedance, few services, etc.).

[cizinec]

Jennifer,

I went to the BC mission in Tulsa.  I had a chance to visit the church in Owasso.  It's very small and I found the priest to be very firm in his convictions but not "scary" at all.  It is certainly humble.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

We had to have a former Anglican baptized in our Serbian Orthodox church.  He was baptized by a captain on the high seas, he had no paperwork concerning the baptism and he couldn't remember it himself to know if it was properly administered.  The baptism was basically a "if he's not baptised, then this is the baptism, but if he was, well, we just wanted to make sure."  There's a written service for that.  

Some protestants are not "baptized" using the trinitarian formula and must, therefore, be baptized.

[Jennifer]

I went to the BC mission in Tulsa several times.  I was told conflicting things about the reception of Catholic converts.  The Antiochian priest said that the ROCOR re-baptized all Catholic converts.  The ROCOR priest said it was decided on a case by case basis but the 'rumor mills' say that he requires every convert to be re-baptized.  

But I heard numerous times how 'scary' the ROCOR priest.  I never met him myself so I never knew who was the telling the truth.

[Elisha]

In my OCA parish, almost everyone in the past few years have been rebaptized.  I think in most cases that it was the person's choice, with many of these being former RC's.

[cizinec]

Well, Jennifer, I think he was pretty strong about a lot of "conservative" issues and he had a long beard and looked like an old-school Orthodox priest.

He brought us into his home, fed us, talked to us very politely about what he thought about the Unia and we did the same.  

I have since had brief contact with him by email.  He is as polite as ever and seems very focused.  I wonder if what he looked like had anything to do with the fear.  The church seems a little weird as well.  It's basically in a work-shop shed converted to a church.  It's not something I think some people would feel comfortable in calling a church.  It looks more like a little private chapel.

[cizinec]

Elisha,

Our bishop normally makes those decisions.  We usually hear back what we have to do.  We didn't get baptized, but we had to go through (another) crowning ceremony to have our marriage recognized by our church.  Our priest was a little surprised, but I think I understand the reasons for it.

Concerning the choice of churches, we went to the Serbian church for really stupid ethnic reasons.  St. Gorazd, etc.  It turned out for the best, though.

[katherine 2001]

In my OCA diocese, people are not given the choice of whether they want to be baptized.  Our bishop makes that decision.

[MsGuided]

In my OCA parish, almost everyone in the past few years have been rebaptized.  I think in most cases that it was the person's choice, with many of these being former RC's.

You're not in the "Diocese of the South" then, are you?
OK, biting my tongue...

[Robert]

There is NO continuity among the OCA bishops on rebaptism of converts.  It is a bit absurd in my opinion.

Robert

[Elisha]

You're not in the "Diocese of the South" then, are you?
OK, biting my tongue...

Nope.  DoW.  I'm not sure if my priest is entirely consistent with the Bish's orders.  I'm not questioning though - he's an excellent priest.

[Justin Kissel]

I'm in ROCOR because they are Orthodox. They are not sectarian. They are not strict. They are not traditionalist. They are not moderate. They are just a plain "live your life as an Orthodox Christian" type of Church.

[carpo-rusyn]

Paradosis

{I'm in ROCOR because they are Orthodox. They are not sectarian. They are not strict. They are not traditionalist. They are not moderate. They are just a plain "live your life as an Orthodox Christian" type of Church.}

Can you "unpack" this?  I don't ask to put you on the spot or disparage ROCOR.  I remember reading Bp Kallistos Ware who said he would've come into Orthodoxy via ROCOR as they preserved the best of the Russian Orthodox tradition.  Do you find this to be true?

Carpo-Rusyn

[Fr. David]

There is NO continuity among the OCA bishops on rebaptism of converts.  It is a bit absurd in my opinion.

Huh.   There're OCA bishops that call for the rebaptism of converts from Trinitarian Protestantism and Catholicism?  That would be absurd; you got any quotes for that?  Not challenging, just curious.

Now, it has been the case (as Elisha has hinted at) that certain OCA priests take it upon themselves to pretty much be insubordinate towards their bishop's wishes and baptize pretty much near everybody that comes in -- such is the case w/ a friend of mine in CO -- but that's a rogue priest, not a bad bishop.

Curious.

[Robert]

Pedro,

The absurdity is that there is no measuring stick. The issue of how to receive a convert seems to be an arbitrary decision made by the bishop, and (depending on whether it's a bad hair day or not) the bishop may choose to rebaptize or chrismate.

As far as Catholic converts to OCA, I have seen the gamut from reception by confession and profession of faith to anointing to chrismation, or baptism.  I've been told that SCOBA has "ruled" on the matter by a number of priests, yet that still doesn't explain the vast discrepencies illustrated.

Personally, I think the best solution is obedience to bishop. But, I would like to figure out why there is such a deviation in methods of reception.

Robert

[katherine 2001]

Actually, I'm in the Diocese of the West, and neither priest I've had gives us a choice of whether to be baptized or chrismated.  Bishop Tikhon makes the decision and they abide by it.  Obedience is part of being Orthodox and you might as well start your Orthodox life by being obedient to what you're told to do.

[Αριστοκλής]

Just so! Excellent closing comment, Katherine2001.

Demetri

[Justin Kissel]

carpo-rusyn

Can you "unpack" this?

Well, what I said about just living your life in Christ is probably true about many Churches today.  I'm not totally sure about the Russian tradition--they seem to have kept it as well as anyone. I know as an American, I can see two things in ROCOR. First, they aren't afraid to show their Russianness in their daily lives (in everything from their calendars to the language used at their seminary). And also that Russianness has never offended me or made me feel unwelcome. Now, Russians have a certain way of going about things as do of course Americans, so there have been a few very very minor misunderstandings here and there, but then all families have misunderstandings.

I guess the main thing I was trying to do was say what I see ROCOR as without 1) trying to build it into something it's not, or 2) trying to make it seem like "the very bestest truest most wonderful group". At one point I tried to do both those things, to some extent. Oddly, the priest who I discussed things with the most before joining ROCOR counselled exactly against this type of thing, and I slipped up anyway. So, hopefully I haven't slipped again, or offended anyone.

[Elisha]

In my OCA parish, almost everyone in the past few years have been rebaptized.  I think in most cases that it was the person's choice, with many of these being former RC's.

I should clarify, almost everyone in the past few years has been baptized - not necessarily rebaptized.  For the most part, I think my priest is very obedient to the bishop.  Who are we to judge how obedient our priest is to the bishop (unless you know of some obvious, big and blatant violations)?  If you want to be extremely anal about things, I'm sure the services in the average parish would be MUCH different if everyone priest ran their parish to the 't' to what the bishop says and likes.

I was curious about the baptism issue and remember asking someone in my parish and they said that he consults with the bishop on each (convert) case on what to do.  Maybe the person doesn't remember being baptized in their former church?  Maybe their priest/minister was some rogue person?  Who knows why the person is being baptized?  It is not our place to judge.

I highly recommend reading the book "The Non-Orthodox" by Patrick Barnes (the Orthodox Christian Info Center guy).  He has a section on Ecumenism in the book which covers the baptismal issue.  As accusingly/scathing he may be in that section, I think find his points hard to disagree with.

[Anastasios]

I don't understand fully the idea that we have to be obedient to a bishop at least in this reception issue. What if the bishop told a Mormon he could be received by chrismation? He would obviously be wrong. Should we be obedient to someone when they are wrong?  Maybe if the bishop is not correct on the issue one should appeal to the Synod.

Anastasios

[Anastasios]

Pedro,

Why would it be absurd to baptize a Catholic or a Protestant? I don't know of anyone in the Orthodox world saying that their baptisms "count" in and of themselves (except a few people at SVS and on the WCC staff) so why would it be wrong to baptize them Orthodox? It would seem to me to be better to receive the fulness of the rite of initiation. I think chrismation is overused these days.

Anastasios

[Robert]

So I'm confused, do Catholics and Protestants have valid baptism or not? If so, can you please cite some sort of evidence?

Robert

[Deacon Lance]

Anastasios,

"Why would it be absurd to baptize a Catholic or a Protestant?"

Because it goes against the canons that have consistently held that those who receive Trinitarian baptism are not to be rebaptised but received through profession of faith and/or reconciliatory chrismation.  Unless you are going to argue that Catholics and Portestants should be held worse than Arians or Quartodecimans.

First Council of Constantinople
Canon VII.

Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies-for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:-all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.


Synod of Trullo
CANON XCV.

THOSE who from the heretics come over to orthodoxy, and to the number of those who should be saved, we receive according to the following order and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, who call themselves Cathari, Aristeri, and Testareskaidecatitae, or Tetraditae, and Apollinarians, we receive on their presentation of certificates and on their anathematizing every heresy which does not hold as does the holy Apostolic Church of God: then first of all we anoint them with the holy chrism on their foreheads, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears; and as we seal them we say--"The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost."

But concerning the Paulianists it has been determined by the Catholic Church that they shall by all means be rebaptized. The Eunomeans also, who baptize with one immersion; and the Montanists, who here are called Phrygians; and the Sabellians, who consider the Son to be the same as the Father, and are guilty in certain other grave matters, and all the other heresies--for there are many heretics here, especially those who come from the region of the Galatians--all of their number who are desirous of coming to the Orthodox faith, we receive as Gentiles. And on the first day we make them Christians, on the second Catechumens, then on the third day we exorcise them, at the same time also breathing thrice upon their faces and cars; and thus we initiate them, and we make them spend time in church and hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

And the Manichaeans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion.

Synod of Laodicea
Canon VII.

Persons converted from heresies, that is, of the Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans, whether they were catechumens or communicants among them, shall not be received until they shall have anathematized every heresy, and particularly that in which they were held; and afterwards those who among them were called communicants, having thoroughly learned the symbols of the faith, and having been anointed with the holy chrism, shall so communicate in the holy Mysteries.

[Anastasios]

Fr Deacon Lance,

Do you really think that a) I have not read those canons or b) no one who argues for the baptism of Catholics or Protestants has read those canons? You can't just quote canons as if they are falling from the sky.

Those canons addressed a very specific instance where groups that were splitting from the church, but whose schisms were new (and whose schisms were mixing with the Orthodox in a not-always-clearly-distinguishable way) and who had received TRIPLE IMMERSION baptism were to be received by chrismation to ease their reconciliation. That is very different from the Catholics and Protestants of today who do not baptize by triple immersion in many cases and who have been separate from the Orthodox Church for centuries.

Whatever the historical way that various groups were received, if only the Orthodox Church has grace, why would you NOT want to baptize everyone else?  Why would you want to chrismate (a valid form of receiving people I admit) when you could just as easily baptize? If the original baptism in and of itself does not count but only by chrismation is it fulfilled in the church, why wouldn't you want the person to receive the fullest form of initiation?

Anastasios

[Deacon Lance]

Anastasios,

So now you are pare part of the "only the Orthodox have grace" party?

The canons may have had a specific context but the principle remains the same.  The Fathers did not consider the baptisms of schismatics or heretics graceless.  And the heresies they held were in some cases much more serious than what seperates Orthodox and Catholics today.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Anastasios]

Anastasios,

So now you are pare part of the "only the Orthodox have grace" party?

The canons may have had a specific context but the principle remains the same.  The Fathers did not consider the baptisms of schismatics or heretics graceless.  And the heresies they held were in some cases much more serious than what seperates Orthodox and Catholics today.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr Lance,

I am not willing to discuss my personal views publicly. I am arguing this from a specific point of view that I may not agree with for the point of elucidating some points.

Where does it say in those canons that those Fathers accepted that the baptisms IN AND OF THEMSELVES had grace? No where.

The method of reception for a convert other than baptism does not immediately establish what one thinks of the grace of such an act. The teaching on economy as explicated by St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain is that there is no sacramental grace outside of the Orthodox Church, but that the sacrament of chrismation can fill in the empty form of heterodox baptism. But it is preferable to baptize.

Hardly any reputable Orthodox--except for a very limited number of scholars and ecumenists--actually argues that non-Orthodox have sacramental grace per se. But if they turn to the Church their baptism can be grace-endowed via chrismation.

Anastasios

[Deacon Lance]

Anastasios,

First forgive me for my question, it was inappropriate.

"The method of reception for a convert other than baptism does not immediately establish what one thinks of the grace of such an act. The teaching on economy as explicated by St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain is that there is no sacramental grace outside of the Orthodox Church, but that the sacrament of chrismation can fill in the empty form of heterodox baptism. But it is preferable to baptize."

This is rationalization after the fact, to justify what some wanted to do.  The fact is that the Preschism Church did not rebaptize most heretics or schismatics.  The chrismation used was one of a reconciliatory nature with different prayers from those used at baptismal chrismation and this reconciliatory chrismation was also used for Orthodox who apostacized, whose baptisms were certainly grace filled.  Talk of Latin baptisms being graceless did not start until after the 1204 Sacking of Constantiople (surprise) and did not gain popularity again until the Unias started (surpise).  However, one can find that the Euchologians through this period still retained the instructions of the Fathers and only recommendsed chrismation for those convert Latins who had not received it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

[Fr. David]

Why would it be absurd to baptize a Catholic or a Protestant? I don't know of anyone in the Orthodox world saying that their baptisms "count" in and of themselves (except a few people at SVS and on the WCC staff) so why would it be wrong to baptize them Orthodox?

I totally agree.  It's not wrong.  It's one, very ancient, very valid tradition that has existed along the "laying-on-of-hands-only" tradition for centuries within the Church.

If you'll look back at my post, you'll see I didn't call it absurd, in and of itself.  I merely thought it strange that whole parts of the OCA would call for the rebaptism of such, since statements have been made repeatedly by the OCA and SCOBA at large that chrismation, being SCOBA's received tradition of reception of converts, is to be followed.

That's all.  It's as wrong for SCOBA to say (as some therein have) that baptism of Trinitarian heterodox is necessarily redundant as it is for GOC/ROCOR folks to say that chrismation alone is necessarily insufficient.  I'm glad you're not in that latter camp.

[carpo-rusyn]

Paradosis

Good "unpacking"!!

Thanks
Carpo-Rusyn

[Elisha]

Pedro,
I have never seen any of these statements by SCOBA (not that they don't exist).  Regardless, SCOBA is what it is - a conference.  They're not the Church or the American uber-Synod.  They don't really make binding (to use an RC word) orders or statements.  I'm not worried and frankly don't care too much what statements SCOBA may make.  JP and ROCOR chuches aren't "SCOBA", but they're (especially the JP) as Orthodox as any.  I rejoice when the members do things as in ACTIONS that work to break down the jurisdictional beariers, missionize, and other activities.  I think your statement of "whole parts of the OCA calling for rebaptizing" is both innacurate and an overreaction.

[Elisha]

Another thing.  This couple that was received last Holy Saturday, I think that he was the first in a while that I remember not being baptized - I think just Chrismated.  I think he was a relatively devout RC.  Now his wife didn't really grow up as part of church - she was baptized (not re).

[Donna Rose]

Personally, I think the best solution is obedience to bishop. But, I would like to figure out why there is such a deviation in methods of reception.

I agree, Robert, with both parts of your statement.

Obedience is part of being Orthodox and you might as well start your Orthodox life by being obedient to what you're told to do.

I agree, katherine 2001. At the end of the day, obedience is the key, for why bother entering a church you refuse to obey? Just don't enter if you can't reconcile yourself with the way the Church is run.

I didn't mean to end on a negative note... Just my thoughts on the matter, which have been buzzing through my mind for a while now.

[JoeS]

I was first baptised in the Episcopal church as an infant, later as a small child I was "conditionally" baptised into the Roman Catholic faith and my eventual move to Orthodoxy only required Chrismation since my initial baptism was recognized as valid.

JoeS

[Tallitot]

Which leads into my question: do Orthodox ever "conditionally" baptise someone in case there is a question as to the validity of thier first baptism?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Convert Issues (Moderator: Thomas) > Topic: Converting and choice of church