• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Catechumen-soon to be Orthodox, asking important question

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Maria said:
Antonis said:
Maria said:
So let me get this clear.

Although I was chrismated into the Orthodox Church because the priest and bishop felt that my hesitation invalidated my confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church, deceit does not invalidate a Baptism?
First of all, hesitation and deceit are two different things.

If you hesitated, you may or may not have been participating according to your will. Your bishop likely recommended, then, that you be chrismated "just in case," which you essentially outlined anyway. This is logical, because participation in baptism/chrismation shouldn't be against one's will. Its "validity" would then be in question.

While the OP's baptism involved deceit, and this is certainly inappropriate, he was given trinitarian baptism and he fully desired it. Regardless of his sinful activity or otherwise, he was baptized and this is to be recognized.
In Roman Catholicism, deceit of any kind can annul a wedding. So, if a man wanted to marry a woman not because he loved her, but to hide his homosexuality to attain financial gain, which was done more than we would like to admit, this deceit invalidates a marriage. If a man was sexually impotent, and he knew this, but he refused to admit this to the priest and/or his future wife, this could also invalidate a marriage.

Lack of free will also invalidated a Roman Catholic marriage, so forced marriages were not recognized. This has caused some scrupulosity. How many men and women hesitate at the altar?

When I got married in the Roman Catholic Church, we had a disclosure form which we had to fill out completely that covered all these points.

If deceit and/or hesitation can invalidate a wedding, then could not deceit and/or hesitation invalidate a baptism?
This is ignoring the fact that Catholic marital beliefs are different than ours with their complex canons on annulment, divorce, and reconciliation.

The deceit in the case you mentioned involves participating in a sacrament for the wrong reason. According to Catholic belief (in this case uniquely marital) being involved in a marriage without desire for true marriage would mean it never occurred, hence the annulment. As I said before, the OP had a true desire for baptism. It is acceptable.

Now you can keep throwing inapplicable anecdotal cases at me and we can venture into the complexities of Roman Canon Law, or we can both agree that he obey his bishop as is proper. If you have to work this hard at it, is it not obvious that it should be left to an archpastor?

Rhomes, if in doubt, please check with the ROCOR.

Your increasing doubt can only lead to scrupulosity.
This is shamefully unorthodox. If in doubt, obey your bishop. One does not run to another bishop for a true "gold standard" of Orthodoxy. THAT is against the canons.
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
Maria said:
Antonis said:
Maria said:
So let me get this clear.

Although I was chrismated into the Orthodox Church because the priest and bishop felt that my hesitation invalidated my confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church, deceit does not invalidate a Baptism?
First of all, hesitation and deceit are two different things.

If you hesitated, you may or may not have been participating according to your will. Your bishop likely recommended, then, that you be chrismated "just in case," which you essentially outlined anyway. This is logical, because participation in baptism/chrismation shouldn't be against one's will. Its "validity" would then be in question.

While the OP's baptism involved deceit, and this is certainly inappropriate, he was given trinitarian baptism and he fully desired it. Regardless of his sinful activity or otherwise, he was baptized and this is to be recognized.
In Roman Catholicism, deceit of any kind can annul a wedding. So, if a man wanted to marry a woman not because he loved her, but to hide his homosexuality to attain financial gain, which was done more than we would like to admit, this deceit invalidates a marriage. If a man was sexually impotent, and he knew this, but he refused to admit this to the priest and/or his future wife, this could also invalidate a marriage.

Lack of free will also invalidated a Roman Catholic marriage, so forced marriages were not recognized. This has caused some scrupulosity. How many men and women hesitate at the altar?

When I got married in the Roman Catholic Church, we had a disclosure form which we had to fill out completely that covered all these points.

If deceit and/or hesitation can invalidate a wedding, then could not deceit and/or hesitation invalidate a baptism?
The reason you get an annulment is because in the RCC the coupled performs the sacrament.  That's why a priest or deacon can witness the marriage.

You can't say a sacrament is invalid because of the receiver or priest. The name eludes me but this is a condemned heresy in both Orthodox and RCC.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
You can't say a sacrament is invalid because of the receiver or priest. The name eludes me but this is a condemned heresy in both Orthodox and RCC.
Donatism, maybe?
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Faith
TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Antonis said:
You can't say a sacrament is invalid because of the receiver or priest. The name eludes me but this is a condemned heresy in both Orthodox and RCC.
Donatism, maybe?
That heresy only pertains to the priest or bishop who administers the sacrament.

For example, St. Constantine was baptized by an Arian Bishop, but he is a saint, none the less.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Maria said:
Antonis said:
You can't say a sacrament is invalid because of the receiver or priest. The name eludes me but this is a condemned heresy in both Orthodox and RCC.
Donatism, maybe?
That heresy only pertains to the priest or bishop.

For example, St. Constantine was baptized by an Arian Bishop, but he is a saint, none the less.
1. This is a meaningless tangent.

2. That it pertains solely to a priest/bishop is arguable.

3. Your example, while accurate, isn't quite donatism.

 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Faith
TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Antonis said:
Maria said:
Antonis said:
You can't say a sacrament is invalid because of the receiver or priest. The name eludes me but this is a condemned heresy in both Orthodox and RCC.
Donatism, maybe?
That heresy only pertains to the priest or bishop.

For example, St. Constantine was baptized by an Arian Bishop, but he is a saint, none the less.
1. This is a meaningless tangent.

2. That it pertains solely to a priest/bishop is arguable.

3. Your example, while accurate, isn't quite donatism.
Of course, otherwise, St. Constantine would not be a saint.

So those who would declare that St. Constantine should have been rebaptized are the donatists because they look at the unworthiness of a priest/bishop instead of the Grace of God.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Maria said:
Antonis said:
Maria said:
Antonis said:
You can't say a sacrament is invalid because of the receiver or priest. The name eludes me but this is a condemned heresy in both Orthodox and RCC.
Donatism, maybe?
That heresy only pertains to the priest or bishop.

For example, St. Constantine was baptized by an Arian Bishop, but he is a saint, none the less.
1. This is a meaningless tangent.

2. That it pertains solely to a priest/bishop is arguable.

3. Your example, while accurate, isn't quite donatism.
Of course, otherwise, St. Constantine would not be a saint.

So those who would declare that St. Constantine should have been rebaptized are the donatists because they look at the unworthiness of a priest/bishop instead of the Grace of God.
Again, this is a meaningless tangent.

I shouldn't have commented on it in the first place.
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
The creed doesn't say one Chrismation for the remission of sin...
Anyone can baptize in the name of the trinity, mostly applied to emergency baptisms. Hence probably why we accept trinitarian baptisms done by heterodox.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Faith
TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Antonis said:
Maria said:
Antonis said:
Maria said:
Antonis said:
You can't say a sacrament is invalid because of the receiver or priest. The name eludes me but this is a condemned heresy in both Orthodox and RCC.
Donatism, maybe?
That heresy only pertains to the priest or bishop.

For example, St. Constantine was baptized by an Arian Bishop, but he is a saint, none the less.
1. This is a meaningless tangent.

2. That it pertains solely to a priest/bishop is arguable.

3. Your example, while accurate, isn't quite donatism.
Of course, otherwise, St. Constantine would not be a saint.

So those who would declare that St. Constantine should have been rebaptized are the donatists because they look at the unworthiness of a priest/bishop instead of the Grace of God.
Again, this is a meaningless tangent.
Is it? I know of some Protestant-converts who successfully petitioned the Bishop to be baptized because:

(1) the Baptism was not a triple immersion
(2) the preacher was extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox
(3) and finally, the preacher only believed that the act was an ordinance not a Sacrament
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Maria said:
Antonis said:
Maria said:
Antonis said:
Maria said:
Antonis said:
You can't say a sacrament is invalid because of the receiver or priest. The name eludes me but this is a condemned heresy in both Orthodox and RCC.
Donatism, maybe?
That heresy only pertains to the priest or bishop.

For example, St. Constantine was baptized by an Arian Bishop, but he is a saint, none the less.
1. This is a meaningless tangent.

2. That it pertains solely to a priest/bishop is arguable.

3. Your example, while accurate, isn't quite donatism.
Of course, otherwise, St. Constantine would not be a saint.

So those who would declare that St. Constantine should have been rebaptized are the donatists because they look at the unworthiness of a priest/bishop instead of the Grace of God.
Again, this is a meaningless tangent.
Is it? I know of some Protestant-converts who successfully petitioned the Bishop to be baptized because:

(1) the Baptism was not a triple immersion
(2) the preacher was extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox
(3) and finally, the preacher only believed that the act was an ordinance not a Sacrament
What does this have to do with the OP?

The first is a legitimate petition as per the Council of Trullo. The second is also a legitimate petition because akrivia was often applied in the past when heretics were particularly rebellious against Orthodoxy. The third I honestly do not know enough about. Regardless, what does this have to do with the OP's question or with a heretical bishop baptizing Constantine?

Your random anecdotes make no sense. You can't just keep throwing them senselessly at people for them to rebut and be respected as serious arguments.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,445
Reaction score
341
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Maria said:
So let me get this clear.

Although I was chrismated into the Orthodox Church because the priest and bishop felt that my hesitation invalidated my confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church, deceit does not invalidate a Baptism?
I'm not sure what jurisdiction you were joining where the bishop/priest would've accepted your RC confirmation as Chrismation and simply received you by Confession, but "hesitation" needs to be defined before it could be considered in this context.  AFAIK, according to RC theology, "hesitation" would not invalidate a confirmation.  I don't think "deceit" would invalidate a baptism either.  They would probably say the person would need to confess the deceit and be absolved for the baptismal graces to "kick in" or something like that, but I don't think they would say "Let's baptise you again because you were never baptised to begin with". 

Maria said:
In Roman Catholicism, deceit of any kind can annul a wedding. So, if a man wanted to marry a woman not because he loved her, but to hide his homosexuality to attain financial gain, which was done more than we would like to admit, this deceit invalidates a marriage. If a man was sexually impotent, and he knew this, but he refused to admit this to the priest and/or his future wife, this could also invalidate a marriage.

Lack of free will also invalidated a Roman Catholic marriage, so forced marriages were not recognized. This has caused some scrupulosity. How many men and women hesitate at the altar?

When I got married in the Roman Catholic Church, we had a disclosure form which we had to fill out completely that covered all these points.

If deceit and/or hesitation can invalidate a wedding, then could not deceit and/or hesitation invalidate a baptism?
The minister of baptism and confirmation in the RCC is the bishop/priest.  On the other hand, the minister of matrimony is the bride and bridegroom, administering the sacrament to each other.  The role of the priest (or bishop, or deacon, or other episcopally designated witness) is to witness the marriage on behalf of the Church.  If either or both ministers (bride and/or groom) mess around with the administering of the sacrament through something like deceit, that messes around with the sacrament itself and can render it null and void.  That's why "deceit" alone is not enough.  The kind of deceit, who was deceiving, who was deceived, etc. need to be taken into account. 

Maria said:
Rhomes, if in doubt, please check with the ROCOR.

Your increasing doubt can only lead to scrupulosity.
And you're not helping with that one bit, Maria.  Khomes consulted repeatedly with his priest, and his priest knows more about being a priest than either of you do.  If the priest consulted with the bishop--and priests typically know their bishop well enough to know which details to include and which to leave out in order to get to the root of the problem without wasting his valuable time--and both agree that Chrismation is the way to go, that's it.  It's hardly an un-Orthodox option.  Disobedience, on the other hand, is. 

Also, I find this comment to be in violation of the rule on proselytism.  Do not repeat it. 
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
70
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antioch
Maria said:
Is it? I know of some Protestant-converts who successfully petitioned the Bishop to be baptized because:

(1) the Baptism was not a triple immersion
(2) the preacher was extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox
(3) and finally, the preacher only believed that the act was an ordinance not a Sacrament
It's beginning to sound as though you are criticizing bishops based on your own position. We are all aware that bishops (and priests under their direction) will not all make the same call. We don't know the persons or all of the facts involved. What it really comes down to is: are we willing to submit to the church's authority as expressed by the bishop?
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
genesisone said:
Maria said:
Is it? I know of some Protestant-converts who successfully petitioned the Bishop to be baptized because:

(1) the Baptism was not a triple immersion
(2) the preacher was extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox
(3) and finally, the preacher only believed that the act was an ordinance not a Sacrament
It's beginning to sound as though you are criticizing bishops based on your own position. We are all aware that bishops (and priests under their direction) will not all make the same call. We don't know the persons or all of the facts involved. What it really comes down to is: are we willing to submit to the church's authority as expressed by the bishop?
I want to say things that I'm not allowed to here.  :(
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,659
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Khomes said:
Well the Bishop responded today by saying we are to be received via Chrismation. To be honest, it is very disheartening. We don't know what we are going to do. Baptism is very important to me, so now I have to decide to either be obedient to this Bishop or go to a different Church in town that will Baptize. What stinks is that we have had clergy tell us one thing, and others tell us something else. As in, either be obedient to this bishop or to find one that will Baptize and be obedient to him. Im not sure if its perfectly ok to desire Baptism this much or if I am being like the Disciples who walked away because "this teaching is too hard to accept"... please pray for me a sinner... :(
Khomes, this is from your OP:

However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism, and our Priest is asking the Bishop if he can baptize. I want to follow the church and if the Bishop says for us to only receive Chrismation, then I will follow what he says. However, I know that I would always feel lacking, not truly Orthodox, un-baptized. I understand that the church is using economia, but I would rather have akrivia and be baptized. This whole ordeal is causing a great deal of stress for me. I am perfectly willing to be wrong in this whole situation, I just want to do what is right.
Sooner or later, you'll have to decide which is more important: to trust in the decision of your bishop, whose job it is to make such decisions, or putting your own opinion above his. Obedience vs disobedience. Humility vs presumption. Reception by chrismation is not "incomplete" - we have saints who were received in this way.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,659
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Khomes said:
HandmaidenofGod said:
Khomes said:
Well the Bishop responded today by saying we are to be received via Chrismation. To be honest, it is very disheartening. We don't know what we are going to do. Baptism is very important to me, so now I have to decide to either be obedient to this Bishop or go to a different Church in town that will Baptize. What stinks is that we have had clergy tell us one thing, and others tell us something else. As in, either be obedient to this bishop or to find one that will Baptize and be obedient to him. Im not sure if its perfectly ok to desire Baptism this much or if I am being like the Disciples who walked away because "this teaching is too hard to accept"... please pray for me a sinner... :(
Why do you reject the baptism of the Catholic Church and desire a new baptism so strongly? Why do you feel that you are right, and the Bishop is wrong in accepting you via chrismation?

Do not deny your Catholic background; rather, see it as part of the journey that lead you to where you are today. Try to see the long arc of the journey, and not just this step in road.
Thank you for the advice. Why we desire Orthodox baptism so strongly is that not only was it not in the correct form (no immersion), we don't believe the catholic church has sacramental grace and we wanted our new life in Orthodoxy to be just that, born from Holy Baptism. It is very hard to describe in writing the full extent of why we desire baptism so strongly.
What is a far more important consideration in your conversion is your acceptance of what Orthodoxy actually teaches, not what outward form your reception into the Church takes.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,659
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Khomes said:
DeniseDenise said:
Scrupulousity.

Your desire to be Orthodox is wonderful. But deciding you can evaluate your own situation better than a Bishop?

How will you end up feeling later when you find out your priest was received via chrismation?  Will that make you think him 'less orthodox?'
I understand and I see what you are saying. These are some of the things that I am juggling around in my head. Another aspect that the Bishop didn't know when he made his decision (our Priest chose not to mention it) is that when I was baptized in the catholic church about 2 years ago was that my fiance (now wife) and I were living in fornication and the catholic church found out and refused to baptize me unless we stopped. In which I lied and said that we would, when we didn't... :( to be honest, this has haunted me ever since I truly realized how wrong that was. This is another main driving factor for me desiring baptism. I don't mean to be prideful or anything, or act like I know more than a bishop when clearly I do NOT. It's just that Holy Baptism is very important to us... uuugggghhhh, this whole situation is just very frustrating. I feel like if I just accepted Chrismation minus Baptism, then I would feel completely unworthy , unprepared, unorthodox for me to receive the Eucharist. I am pretty sure that it would haunt me the rest of my life... :(
Then you're going about it completely the wrong way. You are, as DeniseDenise said, beholden to scrupulosity.

The bishop would, in all likelihood, decided on chrismation for you, even if he knew of the broken promise. Such decisions are made not on the whims of individuals, but on longstanding diocesan policy on how converts are to be received. There are many convert Orthodox priests who entered the Church by chrismation, and they are just as fully Orthodox as those who were baptized.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,659
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
Khomes said:
I should also make it clear that in no way am I talking bad about our current parish, or our Priest, or our Bishop. What stinks is that we love the Church that we go to and our Priest/ Spiritual Father and we want to continue going there, but as you can tell, we are having a dilemma...
If you think highly of your priest and bishop, then you should humbly accept their decision.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
LBK said:
Khomes said:
I should also make it clear that in no way am I talking bad about our current parish, or our Priest, or our Bishop. What stinks is that we love the Church that we go to and our Priest/ Spiritual Father and we want to continue going there, but as you can tell, we are having a dilemma...
If you think highly of your priest and bishop, then you should humbly accept their decision.
Quite right.

The Greek position is spelled out quite specifically here in the rules and regulations governing baptism and reception of converts and the differences in theological opinion between the Greek and Russian positions are explained.  http://www.denver.goarch.org/offices/registry/forms/baptism.pdf

A quite scholarly and detailed expostion of the history and theology behind the various rules and practice governing the reception of converts may be found here in a rather lengthy article:  "On the reception into the Orthodox Church" http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm

While these internet resources are helpful, they are neither dispostive nor do the necessarily reflect the views of your Bishop and those priests under his omophorion (and who are representing him at your parish.)

 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,445
Reaction score
341
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk. 
 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk. 
^ Excellent point, or even if you can find one, an Elder. I've been told that Elders are on a different level than bishops and they almost have their own authority so to speak. Most bishops go to elders for spiritual counsel.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,445
Reaction score
341
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Peacemaker said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk. 
^ Excellent point, or even if you can find one, an Elder. I've been told that Elders are on a different level than bishops and they almost have their own authority so to speak. Most bishops go to elders for spiritual counsel.
Don't confuse the monastic order with the ecclesiastical.  A bishop may well have a spiritual father according to the former, but according to the latter the bishop is the father in his local Church.  In that context, an "Elder" doesn't have his own authority, neither is he "on a different level" from the bishop (unless "different" means "lower"). 

I'm sure people mean well, but really, advising catechumens to disregard the legitimate requirements of their canonical bishops in order to find a jurisdiction or hieromonk more amenable to their personal wishes is among the most un-Orthodox things that can be suggested.  It turns the entire order of the Church upside-down.   
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Faith
TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk
Here in the USA, that is not usually the case.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,445
Reaction score
341
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Maria said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk
Here in the USA, that is not usually the case.
Proof? 
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Faith
TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Mor Ephrem said:
Maria said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk
Here in the USA, that is not usually the case.
Proof? 
Go and read the biographies of the bishops in the OCA. Do the same for the bishops in the GOARCH and in the Antiochian jurisdictions. I did. You will find that the majority of the bishops did not live in a monastery, but might have spent a week or two there in preparation for being consecrated. A week in a monastery does not make one a monk. Being a monk or hieromonk is not a requirement for the episcopacy.
 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk. 
^ Excellent point, or even if you can find one, an Elder. I've been told that Elders are on a different level than bishops and they almost have their own authority so to speak. Most bishops go to elders for spiritual counsel.
Don't confuse the monastic order with the ecclesiastical.  A bishop may well have a spiritual father according to the former, but according to the latter the bishop is the father in his local Church.  In that context, an "Elder" doesn't have his own authority, neither is he "on a different level" from the bishop (unless "different" means "lower"). 

I'm sure people mean well, but really, advising catechumens to disregard the legitimate requirements of their canonical bishops in order to find a jurisdiction or hieromonk more amenable to their personal wishes is among the most un-Orthodox things that can be suggested.  It turns the entire order of the Church upside-down.   
Don't be so quick to judge. I'm not confusing anything and I'm not saying that an Elder HAS authority. I clearly said "I've been told." This was told to me by a hieromonk from the Holy Mountain. Forgive me for not clarifying enough.
 

jah777

Archon
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
7
Points
0
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."

Remission of sins through baptism occurs when the mystery is performed by an Orthodox priest or bishop.  It is understandable that this man would want to be baptized since he has never been baptized.  A non-Orthodox immersion is not a baptism, even less so if it was performed with a single immersion, and even less so if it was a sprinkling.  The full baptismal service alone expresses the full meaning and significance of being received into the Church.    In the Creed we confess "one baptism" not many baptisms, one baptism into One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not many baptisms into various sects and denominations.  I do not understand why bishops would deprive their faithful of baptism, especially when it is being fervently requested.
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk. 
^ Excellent point, or even if you can find one, an Elder. I've been told that Elders are on a different level than bishops and they almost have their own authority so to speak. Most bishops go to elders for spiritual counsel.
Don't confuse the monastic order with the ecclesiastical.  A bishop may well have a spiritual father according to the former, but according to the latter the bishop is the father in his local Church.  In that context, an "Elder" doesn't have his own authority, neither is he "on a different level" from the bishop (unless "different" means "lower"). 

I'm sure people mean well, but really, advising catechumens to disregard the legitimate requirements of their canonical bishops in order to find a jurisdiction or hieromonk more amenable to their personal wishes is among the most un-Orthodox things that can be suggested.  It turns the entire order of the Church upside-down.   
I bolded the above because it is really important. We should not be encouraging catechumens to defy their priest and bishop in order to satisfy a personal whim. (Or even deeply felt desire.)
I knew a priest who was a convert and was "re-baptized" - his bishop was not happy, and things didn't go well for him or for the parish. There was a lot of turmoil, anger and hurt feelings that persisted years later.
I think it's better to enter the Church in humility and obedience, rather than pride and thinking we know better than our priests and bishops.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk. 
^ Excellent point, or even if you can find one, an Elder. I've been told that Elders are on a different level than bishops and they almost have their own authority so to speak. Most bishops go to elders for spiritual counsel.
Don't confuse the monastic order with the ecclesiastical.  A bishop may well have a spiritual father according to the former, but according to the latter the bishop is the father in his local Church.  In that context, an "Elder" doesn't have his own authority, neither is he "on a different level" from the bishop (unless "different" means "lower"). 

I'm sure people mean well, but really, advising catechumens to disregard the legitimate requirements of their canonical bishops in order to find a jurisdiction or hieromonk more amenable to their personal wishes is among the most un-Orthodox things that can be suggested.  It turns the entire order of the Church upside-down.   
pom nomination
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."

Remission of sins through baptism occurs when the mystery is performed by an Orthodox priest or bishop.  It is understandable that this man would want to be baptized since he has never been baptized.  A non-Orthodox immersion is not a baptism, even less so if it was performed with a single immersion, and even less so if it was a sprinkling.  The full baptismal service alone expresses the full meaning and significance of being received into the Church.    In the Creed we confess "one baptism" not many baptisms, one baptism into One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not many baptisms into various sects and denominations.  I do not understand why bishops would deprive their faithful of baptism, especially when it is being fervently requested.
Mor is correct. You are providing erroneous advice.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
katherineofdixie said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
Khomes said:
However my dilemma here is that the Church wants to receive me via Chrismation. I am very adamant about receiving baptism
Visit a monastery, problem solved :p

You might think I am trying to be funny, but most monasteries now-a-days will do what's called a correctional baptism if they find out you've been received by Chrismation. It's not a re-baptism but it's to correct any wrongs that may have been made in the heretical church's we converts come from. (Almost all Russian style parishes follow the practice)

If you want to know more about why we should be brought into the Church through baptism AND Chrismation together and not just Chrismation check out a book my monk friend gave me. It's called "I Confess One Baptism..." by Fr. George D. Metallinos (you can find it on amazon)

Keep in mind this is a VERY controversial subject and we really need an ecumenical council to deal with it
Or the local bishop.  Usually he's also a monk.  
^ Excellent point, or even if you can find one, an Elder. I've been told that Elders are on a different level than bishops and they almost have their own authority so to speak. Most bishops go to elders for spiritual counsel.
Don't confuse the monastic order with the ecclesiastical.  A bishop may well have a spiritual father according to the former, but according to the latter the bishop is the father in his local Church.  In that context, an "Elder" doesn't have his own authority, neither is he "on a different level" from the bishop (unless "different" means "lower").  

I'm sure people mean well, but really, advising catechumens to disregard the legitimate requirements of their canonical bishops in order to find a jurisdiction or hieromonk more amenable to their personal wishes is among the most un-Orthodox things that can be suggested.  It turns the entire order of the Church upside-down.  
I bolded the above because it is really important. We should not be encouraging catechumens to defy their priest and bishop in order to satisfy a personal whim. (Or even deeply felt desire.)
I knew a priest who was a convert and was "re-baptized" - his bishop was not happy, and things didn't go well for him or for the parish. There was a lot of turmoil, anger and hurt feelings that persisted years later.
I think it's better to enter the Church in humility and obedience, rather than pride and thinking we know better than our priests and bishops.
Amen.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."

Remission of sins through baptism occurs when the mystery is performed by an Orthodox priest or bishop.  It is understandable that this man would want to be baptized since he has never been baptized.  A non-Orthodox immersion is not a baptism, even less so if it was performed with a single immersion, and even less so if it was a sprinkling.  The full baptismal service alone expresses the full meaning and significance of being received into the Church.    In the Creed we confess "one baptism" not many baptisms, one baptism into One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not many baptisms into various sects and denominations.  I do not understand why bishops would deprive their faithful of baptism, especially when it is being fervently requested.
Because of the Council 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.



Regardless, a bishop can exercise economia and akrivia. In this case, they are merely following canonical tradition. The rebellious attitude being displayed here is what leads to schism and the tearing apart of the Church due to the willfulness of sheep who are meant to be obedient. The sheep does not lead around his shepherd thinking he knows better. He doesn't.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
I was brought up to respect monasticism and monks and monasteries.

I was also brought up to respect priests, bishops and local parishes.

What I have no respect for is the attitude that "Elders" are seemingly in possession of "better"  truth and "truer" Orthodoxy than are parish priests or diocesan bishops.

That is utter nonsense and one of the great causes of division in many parishes.

We are not all called to the monastic life.

People here post comments advising others to disregard their pastor and Bishop and find a monk who thinks along "their" lines or their perception of how the Church is to be. 

That is why questions pop up questioning the impact of certain monks and monasteries and whether or not they are positive or negative influences.

As the Assembly of Canonical Bishops grows in terms of establishing common, inter-jurisdictional regulations, the seemingly disparate answers to the types of issues the OP and others raised will hopefully disappear. But there will always be those who are unhappy and hence, there will likely always be some who look elsewhere for "answers."

 

jah777

Archon
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Antonis said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."

Remission of sins through baptism occurs when the mystery is performed by an Orthodox priest or bishop.  It is understandable that this man would want to be baptized since he has never been baptized.  A non-Orthodox immersion is not a baptism, even less so if it was performed with a single immersion, and even less so if it was a sprinkling.  The full baptismal service alone expresses the full meaning and significance of being received into the Church.    In the Creed we confess "one baptism" not many baptisms, one baptism into One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not many baptisms into various sects and denominations.  I do not understand why bishops would deprive their faithful of baptism, especially when it is being fervently requested.
Because of the Council 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.

Regardless, a bishop can exercise economia and akrivia. In this case, they are merely following canonical tradition. The rebellious attitude being displayed here is what leads to schism and the tearing apart of the Church due to the willfulness of sheep who are meant to be obedient. The sheep does not lead around his shepherd thinking he knows better. He doesn't.
According to this canon, the Eumonians were received by baptism because they no longer maintained the apostolic form of baptism but baptized with only a single immersion, yet today bishops disregard the form altogether and insist on chrismating even when people have only received a sprinkling or pouring.  Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in his very detailed explanation regarding the reception of converts also said that:

[size=10pt]Contemporary practice in the matter of reception is defined along the following lines:

There must be 1) apostolic succession in the community to which the person to be received has belonged; 2) baptism by a regular rite (that is by threefold immersion in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).

When these conditions are fulfilled the rite of baptism is not repeated.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/khrap_econ.aspx
As he said, a person should not be received without baptism if they did not previously receive three immersions. 

It is also not true that bishops are above the canons or that bishops are free to apply oikonomia as they see fit.

In an article entitled "The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church" on the GOARCH website, the following is written:
[size=10pt] As evidenced by the phrase: "it shall be lawful to the bishops to grant more indulgence, or to take away [what has been granted]," "economy" may be both a more lenient or a more strict observance of the rule. Consequently, "economy" is any deviation from the norm. The exercise of "economy" ceases if its cause no longer exists or if the basis for its application rested upon false or pretended grounds. Once "economy" has been applied, the normative practice is restored as before. Furthermore, temporary departure from the normative practice through "economy" does not set precedent.

The institution of "economy" has been actively invoked throughout the history of the Orthodox Church. This is perhaps due in part to liberal trends of thought in the cultural milieu within which the Orthodox Church flourished. Although authority in the exercise of "economy," especially in matters of great importance, rests with the synod of bishops of each local church, this authority, as indicated, can be delegated to individual bishops as well. The Ecumenical Synod, as supreme administrative, legislative and judicial body in the Church, administers ultimate authority in the exercise of "economy." It alone can alter or overrule the decision of any subordinate ecclesiastical authority. In the realm of conscience, however, it is the spiritual father who has been entrusted with the authority to exercise "economy" according to his good judgment. The determining factor in its application, however, must always be the spiritual welfare of the penitent.

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7071
So, economy is a departure from the norm, it is to be applied when strict adherence to the canons may hinder people from being saved (St. Basil's first canon), and the norm is to be returned to as soon as the need for practicing economy is no longer there.  Unfortunately, some bishops insist on economy even when catechumen ask to be baptized, which is not at all the practice of economy but a rejection of the canonical norms and an abuse of episcopal authority.  How can it be considered necessary and beneficial to deviate from the norm when the catechumen beg to be received according to the norms and struggle in their conscience regarding the use of economy in their case?  If people go into schism because the canons are misapplied and episcopal authority is abused, and this happen all the time, it is ultimately the bishops who misuse and misapply the canons that carry the burden of responsibility.   
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Contemporary practice in the matter of reception is defined along the following lines:

There must be 1) apostolic succession in the community to which the person to be received has belonged; 2) baptism by a regular rite (that is by threefold immersion in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).

When these conditions are fulfilled the rite of baptism is not repeated.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/khrap_econ.aspx
This should end discussion on this topic from your end right here. The OP is coming from the Latin Church which fulfills both conditions put forth by HE Met. Anthony. Thus, the OP should NOT be baptized again. Thank you for your contribution to the thread topic. Done.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Age
51
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Fantastic...

Let's just all individually read the canons and decide how they should be applied to ourselves personally.


Apostolic succe-wha?
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
DeniseDenise said:
Fantastic...

Let's just all individually read the canons and decide how they should be applied to ourselves personally.


Apostolic succe-wha?
I am more traditional than holy tradition itself!
 

jah777

Archon
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Antonis said:
Contemporary practice in the matter of reception is defined along the following lines:

There must be 1) apostolic succession in the community to which the person to be received has belonged; 2) baptism by a regular rite (that is by threefold immersion in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).

When these conditions are fulfilled the rite of baptism is not repeated.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/khrap_econ.aspx
This should end discussion on this topic from your end right here. The OP is coming from the Latin Church which fulfills both conditions put forth by HE Met. Anthony. Thus, the OP should NOT be baptized again. Thank you for your contribution to the thread topic. Done.

Khomes said:
[size=10pt]
I come from a roman catholic background. I was "baptized" in their church as a teenager with water poured over my head.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Age
51
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Ok.....the words 'RC background also have the potential to apply that perhaps his PARENTS had him properly baptized as a child

Just because he only remembers something that -might- not have been a triple immersion does not GUARANTEE one did not happen at some point when he was younger.


Not to imply that anyone is fibbing....

But when someone not yet in -any- Orthodox Church has already decided they dislike ecumenism, is questioning Bishops, etc etc.,.... I often fear the complete story is shortchanged in order to elicit the 'desired response' to take back to tell ones Priest they are WRONG.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
jah777 said:
Antonis said:
Contemporary practice in the matter of reception is defined along the following lines:

There must be 1) apostolic succession in the community to which the person to be received has belonged; 2) baptism by a regular rite (that is by threefold immersion in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).

When these conditions are fulfilled the rite of baptism is not repeated.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/khrap_econ.aspx
This should end discussion on this topic from your end right here. The OP is coming from the Latin Church which fulfills both conditions put forth by HE Met. Anthony. Thus, the OP should NOT be baptized again. Thank you for your contribution to the thread topic. Done.

Khomes said:
[size=10pt]
I come from a roman catholic background. I was "baptized" in their church as a teenager with water poured over my head.
Yea? Some Orthodox do the same thing. Does that invalidate those baptisms? The Didache outlines that is acceptable, anyway. It may not be ideal, but it is acceptable.

The poison of insubordination which is present here is the breeding ground of schism and division in the Church. We would be better to keep silent and leave things to the bishop. The mindset advocated here is far more dangerous to the Church than the practice of pouring versus immersion. Demonic pride.
 
Top