OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 06:38:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Baptisms by non-priests...  (Read 5740 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ByzantineSerb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


OC.net


« on: May 26, 2005, 11:58:36 PM »

   What are the Orthodox Churches positions towards this? I believe that Catholics can confer baptism on a person if that individual is dying, or a priest (or another appropriate religious figure) is not possible to find. Do Orthodo alow baptisms by non-priests?


   Pax.
Logged

If we live as people of God, there will be room for all nations in the Balkans and in the world. If we liken ourselves to Cain who killed his brother Abel, then the entire earth will be too small even for two people. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to be
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2005, 12:02:14 AM »

If an emergency, yes.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2005, 12:04:50 AM »

In the case of an emergency a catechumen or an infant can be baptized by a layman, but the standard procedure is that IF they recover they are then baptized by a priest in a normal full baptismal ceremony.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2005, 12:06:24 AM »

In the case of an emergency a catechumen or an infant can be baptized by a layman, but the standard procedure is that IF they recover they are then baptized by a priest in a normal full baptismal ceremony. 

In Greek practice. Not in Russian practice.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2005, 12:07:41 AM »

Yet one more thing the Russians just can't seem to get right....I mean who do the Russians actually baptize? Tongue

Honestly they should all come to Mount Athos and be Hellenized and the learn the truth of all matters - spoken from an overly Hellenized Slav.  Grin
« Last Edit: May 27, 2005, 12:12:12 AM by +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é » Logged
idontlikenames
I'm gonna be the next Matthew777 (whatever that means)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 230

You forgot my briefcase


« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2005, 12:15:24 AM »

Mount Athos???....(shudder)...a little too anti-ecumenical for my tastes.

well, if my Antiochian archdiocese can accept Protestant Baptisms (which are, in effect, baptisms by "non-priests", as they do not have valid ordinations {except the Anglicans}), then I guess so, yes.
Logged

laa ilaah illa al-Maal wa Rothschild howa nabeehi
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2005, 12:25:50 AM »

Mount Athos???....(shudder)...a little too anti-ecumenical for my tastes.

The Orthodox Faith is not about "tastes" ... this sounds way too individualistic and rather like a Cafeteria approach to the Faith.
Logged
idontlikenames
I'm gonna be the next Matthew777 (whatever that means)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 230

You forgot my briefcase


« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2005, 12:36:18 AM »

The Orthodox Faith is not about "tastes" ... this sounds way too individualistic and rather like a Cafeteria approach to the Faith.

yes, i know....i was being sarcastic.....alas, the fact that body language can play no role in internet dialogue.
Logged

laa ilaah illa al-Maal wa Rothschild howa nabeehi
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 535


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2005, 01:12:29 AM »

yes, i know....i was being sarcastic.....alas, the fact that body language can play no role in internet dialogue.

Forgive me for sounding too serious and judgmental. Sarcasm, body language, tone of voice and all those other wonderful indications of a person's feelings are just absent on a message board. 
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2005, 04:27:53 AM »

Quote
well, if my Antiochian archdiocese can accept Protestant Baptisms (which are, in effect, baptisms by "non-priests", as they do not have valid ordinations {except the Anglicans}), then I guess so, yes.

This type of thought is a prime example of the danger of the constant abuse of economy going on today.  When every single heterodox convert is recieved by economy, people begin to believe that Orthodoxy teaches that other baptism and ordinations are "valid."  The principle behind economy is that Orthodoxy infuses grace into that which was previously lacking grace. 
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2005, 07:07:30 AM »

This type of thought is a prime example of the danger of the constant abuse of economy going on today.  When every single heterodox convert is recieved by economy, people begin to believe that Orthodoxy teaches that other baptism and ordinations are "valid."  The principle behind economy is that Orthodoxy infuses grace into that which was previously lacking grace. 

Since this is turning into the usual slap-fest against Protestants, listen to the D.P. and learn.

Recognition of baptisms and recognition of ordinations have little to do with eavh other. In the west, the standard was and is that anyone who is baptized may baptize. Only bishops may ordain, and in general formal recognition of ordinations done outside one's own communion has ben negligible. The big east-west difference here is no more than that the East has a stricter interpretation of how baptisms have to relate to being "in the church".

And I'm betting that Greeks don't rebaptize those baptized by the lay, because I'm betting that they do what the Episcopalians do.

From page 312 of the 1979 BCP: "If the baptized person recovers, the Baptism should be recognized at a public celebration of the Sacrament with a bishop or priest presiding, and the person baptized under emergency conditions, together with the sponsors or godparents, taking part in everything except the administration of the water."
Logged
TonyS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2005, 07:54:40 AM »

In the west, the standard was and is that anyone who is baptized may baptize.

Keble,

Interesting. At Catholic seminary we learned that for the West anyone who has the intention of the Church in mind may administer emergency baptism, regardless of that person's (the one baptizing) beliefs and even if that person is not baptized but that in the East only the baptized can baptize. At Orthodox seminary we were told that only the baptized can baptize.

That asside, for those who do not practice recurring baptism it seems that emergency baptisms are considered authentic and are not repeated. The practice I am familiar with is the completion of the baptism by a public ceremony but the baptism in water with the trinitarian formula is not repeated, as you mention above.

TonyS
« Last Edit: May 27, 2005, 08:01:14 AM by TonyS » Logged

Tómame como al tequila, de un golpe y sin pensarlo. - Ricardo Arjona

I'd be a fool to surrender when I know I can be a contender
and if everbody's a sinner then everybody can be a winner
...
I'll see you when yo
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2005, 09:40:12 AM »

Quote
Recognition of baptisms and recognition of ordinations have little to do with eavh other.

Actually the topic is quite related in that the granting of economy towards either has occurrred at different points in Orthodox history.  But the main point being that they were economy not canonical strictness. 

Quote
And I'm betting that Greeks don't rebaptize those baptized by the lay, because I'm betting that they do what the Episcopalians do.

I am told otherwise that the traditional Greek practice is to administer the entire mystery, including immersion.  That is at least the canonical exactitude in the matter, perhaps not also practiced 100% of the time. 
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2005, 11:16:08 AM »

The economia issue is a very difficult to wrap one's mind around for many reasons.

If you look at the most ancient sources, the assumptions (or perhaps we should say, the lack of assumptions) underlying St.Cyprian's view is what was universally accepted.  By this I mean, the Church that Christ established is singular - one Faith, one Baptism, one Lord.  This is what was revealed to mankind and given by the Apostles.  There is no "runner-up" ecclessiology established by God; there is no single, neat clean way of describing the relationship of schisms and heresies to the Church.  The whole business of how to reconcile those individuals or communities coming away from such ruptures is one of "picking up the pieces from the floor" - the Church is cleaning up a mess in those circumstances, and is left to decide what will be glued back together, what will be discarded and what will be replaced.  Seen from that perspective, it's foolhearty to believe there is always only "one" possible way of doing this, save outside of the pragmatism of policy as established by a single local Church (ex. "we, the Holy Synod of (blank), receive converts from (blank) schism via this means"), and even this may not have a permanent character (depending on how the relationship of the particular schism to the Church changes).

I think what you can glean from all of the various canons relating to this topic (whether local or universal - interestingly, when it comes to the western heresies we are now most familiar with, there have actually been no universal/ecumenical canons formulated, but rather various local policies based in turn upon parallel situations dealt with by the Ecumenical Councils), is the following...

- the Church presumes nothing about the heterodox, in terms of refusing to affirm anything about them but recognizing that all speculation aside, such things could only be known to God.

- OTOH, the Church has recognized that not all schisms/heresies are undifferentiated amongst themselves, and even less, are not regarded as undifferentiated from infidelic religions and paganism, in terms of their relationship to the Church.  What we can know, is that this is because at the very least, on the surface these schisms/heresies have certain key aspects of the truth which pagan religions do not...though certain grotesque heresies are treated, for all practical purposes, as paganism (like the gnostic heresies, or in modern times, something bizarre like Mormonism.)

We can speculate endlessly about what God may or may not do - after all, He is sovereign and will have mercy upon whom He will.  We trust God, know Him to be good, and that He will not deal with anyone unfairly - if there is a lack of fairness, it will be because He has been gratuitously kind, not giving us the hell we all have richly merited at one time or another.  But in the end, such speculations are just that - thoughts, and if anything, can be a cause for falling, like so many endevors into "speculative" or "creative" theology.  Indeed, such activities in a real sense are more the realm of philosophy as classically understood, and not theology proper as understood by the Holy Fathers.  It was by such speculation that western Christendom "jumped the shark", and if you look at the major heresies, they were instigated by such speculations and "what if" scenarios.  Arianism is Christology straight-jacketed by rationalism; so too, in it's own way, are the other Christological heresies condemned by the Ecumenical Councils.   Etc., etc.

Really, properly speaking, we ought not to even presume our own salvation, our own "perseverence to the end" - and that is speaking of those in the Church, with access to the truth, the Holy Mysteries, etc.  Seen in this way, it becomes even more obvious that presuming things about the heterodox is really out of place, since their situation is far more dire.

One of the big mistakes (and it's been pointed out by many far, far wiser men than myself) of the ecumenical movement has been the idea that the Sacraments are somehow the "foundation" of the Church, in particular the Sacrament of Baptism.  As Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos has rightly pointed out, Christ is the foundation of the Church - in a real sense He is the Church, with men priveleged to become members of Him.  Viewed in this proper context then, Baptism is not the foundation of the Church, but something the Church does to bring fallen men inside - it's the beginning of the assimilation of man into Christ.  That's an important consideration, because the contary view portrays the Sacraments as autonomous forms, which given the right ingridients can be "confected" anywhere by anyone.  It is only with such a way of thinking, that one can avoid seeing how obviously mistaken the presumptions of so called "ecumenical ecclessiologies" in fact are.  Indeed, far from being fanatical, it actually makes a great deal of sense to operate under the basic assumption that once you leave the canonical boundaries which the Church has established for Her own self governance, you're outside of the Church.  It's the weird "hocus pocus" type view aped from Roman Catholicism which is "weird."

As for the issue of "lay Baptism", this is a case of leniency within the Church.  Should the person so Baptized live, one of two things can happen - it will be recognized, and the rest of the rites of initiation will be completed by a Priest.  Such a view accepts that it's very likely such an act of liberality taking place within the true faith and within the Church (in an emergency) is honoured by God, and if perhaps it was not, the rest of the rites of initiation, Chrismation, Holy Communion, etc. will complete/fix what was wanting.  However, it is not at all uncommon that for the peace of conscience (not only in regard to the individual in question, but also others they go to Church with who may learn of their situation) an exacting approach will be taken, and the person in question will simply be given ful, canonical Baptism by a Priest.  The same is particular the case where circumstances force a frail person to be given Baptism by pouring water thrice over the forehead due to their frailty - if they recover, they may very well be simply given a full, proper Baptism for the same reason.  The reason for this is simple - because the form of Baptism given to us by God, and promulgated by the Holy Apostles, is one administered by the Priest (who acts with Christ's authority, in His Name - hence "baptizing in the Name of the Lord"), with three immersions, etc.  Anything less than that can be "repeated" - or better put, anything less than this can be ignored.

The Russian practice in these matters is quite liberal (and I don't mean that in a negative way), and that liberality was born out of circumstance - the Slavic peoples (not simply the Russians) came to live in societies that were often pretty "pluralistic" in terms of there being a strong presence of heterodox in their midst, or circumstances provoking schisms which were often beyond the control of "the little guy" (like the various incursions of Uniatism.)  Given those circumstances, such liberality was generally well warranted - the Church doing whatever it could to avoid confusing the "little ones" and certainly having no desire to humiliate people in those situations.

OTOH the Greek practice became increasingly "stern" and "exact", because the above situations generally did not exist, and because the manner that the heterodox westerners were making attempts upon the faith of Greek Orthodox Christians called for a very clear, unambiguous witness to the fact that Orthodoxy is one thing, heresies are something else.  It also didn't help that by the 17th century, the Latins (and most of their Protestant offspring) were universally practicing "baptism by pouring" as something normative.  Though in the Ecumenical Patriarchate this has been softened a great deal, in Greece itself (which is independent, being under the Archbishop of Athens) and on the Holy Mountain (particularly the Holy Mountain) this exacting practice is still in tact.

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2005, 03:46:39 PM »

I am told otherwise that the traditional Greek practice is to administer the entire mystery, including immersion. That is at least the canonical exactitude in the matter, perhaps not also practiced 100% of the time.

Told by whom? I've looked at a dozen different Greek church sites, and every one of them says that the service with the priest includes the chrismation and the other prayers, but does not include the immersions. The only dissent I could find was on Patrick Barnes' site.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2005, 03:57:44 PM »

As for the issue of "lay Baptism", this is a case of leniency within the Church. Should the person so Baptized live, one of two things can happen - it will be recognized, and the rest of the rites of initiation will be completed by a Priest. Such a view accepts that it's very likely such an act of liberality taking place within the true faith and within the Church (in an emergency) is honoured by God, and if perhaps it was not, the rest of the rites of initiation, Chrismation, Holy Communion, etc. will complete/fix what was wanting. However, it is not at all uncommon that for the peace of conscience (not only in regard to the individual in question, but also others they go to Church with who may learn of their situation) an exacting approach will be taken, and the person in question will simply be given ful, canonical Baptism by a Priest.

NO! NO! NO!

The exacting approach, the Catholic approach, the one believed in all times and in all places, is that NO baptism is to be repeated. If there is doubt you must do a conditional baptism-- you cannot do the unqualified rite. "Peace of conscience" is another way of saying "doubt"-- though frankly, in the circumstances here it is up to the priest to educate these people as to the error of their thinking.

You say "canonical"-- find me a canon.
Logged
idontlikenames
I'm gonna be the next Matthew777 (whatever that means)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 230

You forgot my briefcase


« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2005, 04:06:11 PM »

You say "canonical"-- find me a canon.

lemme grab my fake military ID first.
Logged

laa ilaah illa al-Maal wa Rothschild howa nabeehi
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2005, 04:20:42 PM »

Keble,

I was told that by several Athonite priests and others that the complete rite was the canonical exactness (akrivia is the Greek word).  I also believe Father George Metallianos discusses the topic in his book "I Confess One Baptism" (which I do own of a copy of), give me a little time to find it and see what he cites as his justification.  I believe (but will double check) that if someone is not immersed during the correctional baptism by the priest it is considered economy to not do so, not the normnative practice. 
Logged
jlerms
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 826


O sweet Jesus, cleanse my soul.


« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2005, 05:18:29 PM »

Hello,   I am new to this forum so please excuse the intrusion.  My question is related to this one.  I grew up a Roman Cathollic but left the church because of certain doctrine. (ex: papal infallibility, immaculate conception, view on original sin).  I was amazed to find out about the eastern Orthodox church...especially since I felt I was rather educated on church history going to a private Catholic elementary and high school which included daily religion class!!  I still am miffed at how the priests and nuns neglected to tell me or the rest of the students about the existence of Orthodoxy.  The schism of 1054 was mentioned but explained that it paved the way for protestantism.  Oh well.  Now many years later I am a mother of two girls and am currently a catachumen at a greek orthodox church.  God willing, my daughters will be baptised soon.  My question is this.  Can I be baptised the correct way now in the Orthodox church??   My heart tells me that I should be fully immersed and accepted into the Church with baptism and chrismation.  I don't understand why there has been some sort of an agreement with the Vatican and the Greek Orthodox patriarch that  a catholic baptism (which the sacrament differs in areas) is ok.  Besides, there was a  long period of time (about a decade) where I turned from Christ and delved into Buddhism and Hinduism!  So I am feeling very helpless now...if I am unable to receive the grace of God through baptism.  It seems that from the book "I confess in one baptism" that it is necessary for one to be initiated into the one true Church through a "proper" baptism....which includes full immersion.  I appreciate any information about this subject.   God bless you all,   Juliana 
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2005, 05:23:21 PM »

Yes, you can and ought to be baptized in the Orthodox Church!  Glory to God!  Certain people like to create obstacles for that, but fear not - if you truly desire the waters of baptism they are attainable.
Logged
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2005, 05:35:29 PM »

Quote
My question is this.  Can I be baptised the correct way now in the Orthodox church??   My heart tells me that I should be fully immersed and accepted into the Church with baptism and chrismation.  I don't understand why there has been some sort of an agreement with the Vatican and the Greek Orthodox patriarch that  a catholic baptism (which the sacrament differs in areas) is ok.  Besides, there was a  long period of time (about a decade) where I turned from Christ and delved into Buddhism and Hinduism!  So I am feeling very helpless now...if I am unable to receive the grace of God through baptism.  It seems that from the book "I confess in one baptism" that it is necessary for one to be initiated into the one true Church through a "proper" baptism....which includes full immersion.  I appreciate any information about this subject.   God bless you all,   Juliana

Hi Juliana - welcome to the forum Smiley

the short answer is - talk to your priest. there is no consensus on how to receive converts from Roman Catholicism and certain Protestant groups into the Church. there are numerous threads on the forum that cover all the varying viewpoints on the situation (you could do a search to find them), but to clarify one thing you said:

Quote
I don't understand why there has been some sort of an agreement with the Vatican and the Greek Orthodox patriarch that  a catholic baptism (which the sacrament differs in areas) is ok.

the use of economy (ekonomia - sp?) that allows for Roman Catholics and others to be received by Holy Chrismation and Confession alone does not include the heretical teaching that a heterodox (non-Orthodox) baptism is valid ("ok") in and of itself. what Holy Chrismation does is fill in the grace that was lacking in the heterodox baptism - the heterodox baptism alone is not valid at all. sigh - the issue is very complicated, but i urge you to talk to your priest about it. what it came down to for me was trusting my priest and being obedient to his rule for me on this - which was Chrismation. this is my advice for you to do as well - although others may disagree. But in your case - and i am no priest so i am only guessing at this - if you have dabbled in religions other than Christianity after your RC baptism (which i assume occurred when you were an infant, like mine did), that may constitute as some sort of apostasy (lol i may not be using that word right - can you tell im no theologian?  :dunno: Smiley) in which case your priest may feel your situation requires baptism anyway - but dont quote me on that. you and your children are in my prayers as you work towards joing the Church. Smiley

In Christ,
Donna Mary
Logged

hmmmm...
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2005, 06:14:38 PM »

My question is this.  Can I be baptised the correct way now in the Orthodox church??   My heart tells me that I should be fully immersed and accepted into the Church with baptism and chrismation.

The "correct way" is whatever you priest tells you.

If you had turned from Orthodoxy to Hinduism, they would not rebaptize you when you came back. No group except those who choose the interpretation of "believer's baptism" would.

If you will pardon a somewhat personal observation: what you propose seems to me to be something of a "spite" baptism. It seems to me that you want to be rebaptized as a sign of your rejection of the RC Church.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,462


« Reply #22 on: May 31, 2005, 06:59:01 PM »



The "correct way" is whatever you priest tells you.


That is a VERY dangerous statment IMO.  It's not like ignorant/liberal/etc. priests don't exist. 
Logged
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2005, 09:39:19 PM »

Keble wrote:
Quote
The "correct way" is whatever you priest tells you.


That is a VERY dangerous statment IMO. It's not like ignorant/liberal/etc. priests don't exist.

my inclination is to agree w/ Keble (see my above post), but Elisha's comment is fair enough. i might qualify it by saying the "correct" answer is to find a priest you trust and listen to your priest - i know this is almost like saying we as feeble inquirers are an authority on the matter of whether a priest is faulty or not - but in a way, i think this *is* the case, since an inquirer has no bonds to the Church as represented by one of her priests except the inquirer's judgment and heart and whether it perceives he/she is moving in the direction towards or from God - these are the tools of discerning God has given us, and we are called to use them as such, IMO.

In Christ,
Donna Mary
Logged

hmmmm...
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2005, 10:06:17 PM »

Wishing to have an Orthodox baptism is not spite towards one's former confession.  There is much grace and beautiful prayers surrounding the baptism that are sad to loose.  And to see a newly baptized convert going around the baptismal font thrice chanting, "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, Alleluia" is one of most wonderful sights I have seen.  Most people seeking baptism desire this, to truly put on Christ - to die with Christ, that they might rise with him. 

Regarding blindly trusting any priest's advice:
"This obedience [to a confessor's pennances] is cheifly regarding the therapeutic penances given the penitent to counter and heal the damage of sins committed.  This does not mean a monastic type obedience to the confessor or spiritual father in other matters, which, unfortunately some spiritual fathers expect of their spiritual children today.  The Christian should seriously into account the counsels given by the spiritual father, but he is not bound - like a monastic- to obey them blindly."  From Obedience is Life: Elder Ephraim of Katounakia by Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi pg 173

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2005, 11:15:29 PM »

That is a VERY dangerous statment IMO.  It's not like ignorant/liberal/etc. priests don't exist. 

Nor internet cranks who direct other's lives to the glory of their own opinions.

The problem on the one hand is that the genuine arbiter of what is to happen to her is her synod-to-be. In this specific instance, what she will get from us is the traditional fight between the rigorist demand for rebaptism and the absolutist/"ecumenist" prohibition of rebaptism.  What she's maybe not getting is advice suited to her circumstance.

It seems obvious that we can't assume that her priest is no good. Indeed, what I'm wondering is whether her priest has already told her that she'll be chrismated because that's SSP for RC converts. I question how well trust is functioning if one is fishing for a contrary opinion from a bunch of strangers, many of whom have documented axes to grind.

As far as your remarks are concerned, Nectarios, your first sentence is excessively general and the rest of the paragraph tends towards glurge. But more to the point, whatever is liturgically gratifying about the rite is utterly beside the point. Baptized as an infant, I suppose it would have been grander to have been rebaptized in the Episcopal Church rather than merely confirmed. The rules said otherwise, and furthermore, I felt no need to imply that my former faith had been void.
Logged
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2005, 11:53:45 PM »

Quote
But more to the point, whatever is liturgically gratifying about the rite is utterly beside the point.


this i completely agree with. whenever i hear the baptism-only argument and it is infused with this sentiment, it causes me to question the validity of said argument and wonder at its motivations. this is not to say i have not done my own separate research into the matter and come to my own conclusions (fallible as they ultimately may be - only God knows), but it is something i am wary of, since i know it is a temptation for me to fall into the same trap: i.e. allowing my faith and liturgical life to be motivated only by my own tastes and desires. Nektarios, please do not think i am accusing you of this, because like i said, it is something i am wary of more because i know it exists in me.  But i do think it has a tendency to weaken the baptism-only side of things, IMO.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2005, 11:57:56 PM by Donna Rose » Logged

hmmmm...
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2005, 12:29:57 AM »

Most people seeking baptism desire this, to truly put on Christ - to die with Christ, that they might rise with him. 

I wanted baptism.  My priest--under AOAA--said no, which was as it should be, as he was following his bishop's rule.  So I was chrismated.  You know what?  I have truly put on Christ.  When that chrism went on me, my Southern Baptist baptism, incomplete though it was in form and function, was "filled in with that which is lacking" by the Holy Spirit.  That means that, through chrismation, the empty form of my heterodox baptism was made Orthodox, that I was given a guardian angel, that I was renewed and washed clean of ancestral sin, that I was given everything that I would have been given had I gone under the waters. 

It's like this: say you bring in a broken-down car to a garage.  The mechanics have two options: fix your existing car so that it runs, or give you a new car (weird garage, I know, but work with me here, folks!  Wink).  Either way, when it's all said and done, you've got a car that does what it's supposed to do.  It makes, in the end, no difference.
Logged

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

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2005, 12:54:26 AM »

My intention was not an appeal to emotionalism, but to the proper form of baptism.  The three immersions are deeply symbolic - how is sprinkling a little water even resemble this?  Many baptists that use full immersion will openly say they don't believe thier "baptism" bestows grace.... how can this be the start of Christian rebirth?  In the end I simply find it sad that the ecumenist policies would prevent people from being baptized. 

Go ye therefore and baptize all nations....
Logged
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2005, 01:00:16 AM »

Quote
I wanted baptism.  My priest--under AOAA--said no, which was as it should be, as he was following his bishop's rule.  So I was chrismated.  You know what?  I have truly put on Christ.  When that chrism went on me, my Southern Baptist baptism, incomplete though it was in form and function, was "filled in with that which is lacking" by the Holy Spirit.  That means that, through chrismation, the empty form of my heterodox baptism was made Orthodox, that I was given a guardian angel, that I was renewed and washed clean of ancestral sin, that I was given everything that I would have been given had I gone under the waters. 

Amin. Smiley

I think Pedro brings up a very good point that I think rationality encourages us to resist: the fact that my RC baptism was made Orthodox by way of my Holy Chrismation in the Orthodox Church. right now, it is as if I did have an Orthodox Baptism, because it became Orthodox as soon as the Gift of the Holy Spirit was sealed into me. who are we to deny that the Holy Spirit has the power to do this, to retroactively make a heterodox baptism fully Orthodox? in this light, i am nobody, and so i trust that God can do anything, including this. Smiley
Logged

hmmmm...
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2005, 01:46:01 AM »

.... how can this be the start of Christian rebirth? In the end I simply find it sad that the ecumenist policies would prevent people from being baptized.

It isn't the start of Christian rebirth. That's exactly the point, and I think everyone agrees.
What you seem to be saying is that the economia of the Church's Chrisimation of those baptised outside of her depends on those baptisms at least conferring "some" grace (which of course, is not the case). If you look at it this way Chrisimation is just as strict as baptism, since it also makes the point that the original baptism was not salvific, and does not qualify the recipient for membership of the Holy Church.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,462


« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2005, 02:38:15 AM »



Nor internet cranks who direct other's lives to the glory of their own opinions.


Now that's a judgment and assumption as well, Keble - you should know that by now.

More to the point though is that when you see whatever statement (AAOA/SCOBA/Whatever), the statement makes assumption right off the bat that, since convert X came from Denomination A, then they MUST'VE received a Baptism in a valid form, therefore they will be Chrismated.  This just seems like an incredibly naive assumption - and completely ripe for abuse.  This assumes complete fidelity and sound practice from whatever parish in whatever heterdox rite (i.e. correct "liturgical" discipline) as a given.  I know many here keep blasting orthodox"mis"info.com, but Patrick Barnes's book The Non-Orthodox is right on the money.  I don't see how any reasonable-minded or reasonably trained Orthodox could make a counter case to the book with a straight face. 
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,462


« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2005, 02:41:55 AM »

....the economia of the Church's Chrisimation of those baptised outside of her depends on those baptisms at least conferring "some" grace (which of course, is not the case). If you look at it this way Chrisimation is just as strict as baptism...

Sorry, ozgeorge, but this is the whole point - what economia is SUPPOSED to be, the exception, is turning itself into the rule (akriveia).
Logged
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2005, 02:52:27 AM »

Go therefore and baptise all nations.....once. And if they were baptised with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no matter what beliefs they held before, they had the form of baptism. Just like they reject their previous beliefs and get filled with the truth, their early form of baptism gets filled, reconciled, and endowed with the truth they missed out on previously.

According to full practice, shouldn't an Orthodox baptism be in running water? Most people live within driving distance of some sort of river; why don't we follow this to the "correct" form and baptise everyone in live water? whoops. I guess my baptism wasn't good enough.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2005, 02:56:14 AM »



Sorry, ozgeorge, but this is the whole point - what economia is SUPPOSED to be, the exception, is turning itself into the rule (akriveia).

That's because there are lots of people who have been baptised before who are becoming Orthodox and this is a new situation for the Church. We have a lot of people to make exceptions for, and this has not been the case when converts were mostly from pagan religions or other religions. It's a good thing, NOT a reason to change the accepted "rule" for the exceptions.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,462


« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2005, 03:09:29 AM »

Go therefore and baptise all nations.....once. And if they were baptised with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no matter what beliefs they held before, they had the form of baptism. Just like they reject their previous beliefs and get filled with the truth, their early form of baptism gets filled, reconciled, and endowed with the truth they missed out on previously.

According to full practice, shouldn't an Orthodox baptism be in running water? Most people live within driving distance of some sort of river; why don't we follow this to the "correct" form and baptise everyone in live water? whoops. I guess my baptism wasn't good enough.

It's one thing to be overly strict (ala what Fr. Seraphim Rose talks about) and another to be liturgically lazy - baptize by affusion (pouring) or aspersion (sprinkling).  Remember the thread on Clown Masses?  That's not exactly the definition of liturgical discipline.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,462


« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2005, 03:20:18 AM »



That's because there are lots of people who have been baptised before who are becoming Orthodox and this is a new situation for the Church. We have a lot of people to make exceptions for, and this has not been the case when converts were mostly from pagan religions or other religions. It's a good thing, NOT a reason to change the accepted "rule" for the exceptions.

Well then don't call it economia - call it abrikeia under a new canon or something else.  Again, I'm only saying not to make broad assumptions and act on them.  What is this 'baptism' you are talking about?  There needs to be some investigation, verification, etc. at the very least.

Priest:  "Were you baptized in your former church?"
New convert:  "Yeah, I think so.  There was some Altar call thing and they three some water at me."
Priest:  "OK, that's good enough.  You're getting Chrismated."

I'm sure there are not just a few cases that actually pretty close to this - which just seems to be BAD cathechism and lax discipline. 
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #37 on: June 01, 2005, 03:36:59 AM »



Sorry, ozgeorge, but this is the whole point - what economia is SUPPOSED to be, the exception, is turning itself into the rule (akriveia).

True.

"Council at Constantinople local Council, 1755 AD
    Convened regarding Baptism. Decreed that all Westerners -- Latin or Protestant -- had invalid sacraments and were only to be admitted into the Orthodox Church through Baptism."

Of course, it is still the bishop's call and one should assume that his priest is following his order.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2005, 03:41:16 AM »

Sorry, ozgeorge, but this is the whole point - what economia is SUPPOSED to be, the exception, is turning itself into the rule (akriveia).

Calm down.

Firstly this is not the definition of economia, nor akrevia. Economia does not mean "exception to the rule" and akrevia does not mean "the rule". Economia means "dispensation" and akrevia means "exactness".

Secondly, if you follow the discussion in the thread, my point was that both economia and akrevia come from the same position- that all baptisms outside the Church are invalid, and this was in response to Nektarios' statement that
Many baptists that use full immersion will openly say they don't believe thier "baptism" bestows grace.... how can this be the start of Christian rebirth?
So, I disagree, it is exactley the point since neither economia nor akrevia depend on grace being present in the "baptism".

Thirdly, in regards to the Baptists, this is a moot point, since "those ecumenists" in the Ecumenical Patriarchate actually insist on rebaptising Baptists because their baptism is not Trinitarian- surely a more important point than being baptism by immersion?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2005, 05:50:59 AM »

I'm sure there are not just a few cases that actually pretty close to this - which just seems to be BAD cathechism and lax discipline.

So, here you make an assumption which you don't know to be true (that "not just a few" Orthodox priests are Chrisimating those whose form of baptism is unacceptable).....evidence? ......Then you accuse these priests (of whose existence you have no evidence, you only assume they exist) of seeming "BAD catechism and lax discipline"..........
This "seems" to me to be a bunch of emotional claptrap.

If we could all stop biting each other's fingers for five minutes, we will probably see that we are all pointing at the same thing from different directions. BOTH economia and akrevia state that any baptism outside the Church is invalid, and must be corrected for entry into the Holy Church.

Furthermore, to simply quote canons in such discussions is ludicrous. The whole point of economia is that the Church can relax the canons by her Dispensation.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 01, 2005, 06:03:51 AM »

Well then don't call it economia - call it abrikeia under a new canon or something else.

Elisha, every time you take Holy Communion, the Church gives it to you by economia, as it has done for centuries. According to the 101st Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Body of Christ must be recieved directly from the priests hand without the use of an impliment, and the Blood of Christ must be administered directly from the chalice to the communicant's mouth. You see, the Canons of an Ecumenical Council forbid the use of the labis (Spoon). There is no Canon about this, it is simply another example of the Holy Church's economia relaxing a Canon.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #41 on: June 01, 2005, 07:22:37 AM »

Priest: "Were you baptized in your former church?"
New convert: "Yeah, I think so. There was some Altar call thing and they three some water at me."
Priest: "OK, that's good enough. You're getting Chrismated."

No responsible Episcopal priest would accept this!

When I was about to be confirmed, one of the other guys had been baptized at some sort of church camp. They had a devil of a time trying to get a hold of the records, to the point where they were planning on a conditional baptism if they didn't appear. (Eventually they did.)

You've switched from one sort of problem to another which calls for an utterly different response. Someone who was baptized in an RC church has records; neither is form an issue. The present situation isn't that of some obscurantist baptist sect which doesn't keep records nor fails to follow the proper form.

The catholic standard of the West is that baptism is not to be repeated, not even by accident. Therefore, if there is any hint that a baptism has been performed, but the evidence is not up to the usual standard (normally, recording within a parish registry), then a conditional baptism is performed. If someone is baptized as a joke, and the correct form is used, the a conditional baptism, or even economy, will be used. In the Episcopal Church it has come to the point of accepting Mormon baptisms by economy, because they use the proper form. No Catholic, Anglican, Prebyterian, Methodist, or Lutheran would rebaptize a Roman Catholic for whom baptismal records could be obtained. It's hard to imagine that the East has slid from this standard.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2005, 09:19:24 AM by Keble » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2005, 09:34:42 AM »

Now that's a judgment and assumption as well, Keble - you should know that by now.

I'd call it a judgement, yes, and an observation. I'm not accusing you especially of being a crank; the point is rather that if one comes to the the net with an out-of-bounds opinion, one will surely find someone to ratify it.

Quote

More to the point though is that when you see whatever statement (AAOA/SCOBA/Whatever), the statement makes assumption right off the bat that, since convert X came from Denomination A, then they MUST'VE received a Baptism in a valid form, therefore they will be Chrismated.

The problem is that this logic implies that anyone who comes from another parish of any type must undergo at least conditional baptism. If records can't be trusted, then they can't be trusted. If you're going to say that "well, her priest might be off the wall", well yeah: then you can't trust that anyone whom you haven't seen baptized is actually baptized. Denomination has nothing to do with it.

It is way too tendentious to adopt the position that baptisms recorded in RC parish registers can be assumed to be improper in form. Produce the evidence that this is so, and one might have an argument. In the absence of such evidence, it is a baseless accusation.

And speaking of tendentious, Patrick Barneshas (sorry I must be so blunt) a bad case of convert rigor. He also seems to prefer sources who are out of step with the primary synods.
Logged
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2005, 10:07:53 AM »

In my experience, a convert must provide evidence of their baptism, either by certificate or by tracking down their priest/pastor/whatever. If they are unable to show that they were baptised, they'll probably receive baptism. I think your little imagined scenario is ridiculous and makes the bad assumption that priests are doing wrong things and that YOU know better. Even if such a situation arose, it speaks to the incorrect behavior of the priest, not the incorrect treatment of the Church toward those who have been baptised before. I thought we all knew not to stand in judgment on the Church, especially when taking individuals' behavior as the standard by which to judge?

Again, just because there are a LOT of people to make dispensation for doesn't mean that we should in fact go against the Church, contradicting it's canons or formalized way of doing things, by changing the dispensation. That's real innovation in the face of Tradition.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #44 on: June 01, 2005, 10:19:56 AM »

Go therefore and baptise all nations.....

The Orthodox don't believe this. They believe that "all nations" have to come to THEM.
Logged
Tags: baptism 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.146 seconds with 71 queries.