• 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

Ekdikos

Elder
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Antonis said:
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.
Probably more Baptism is done by pouring than with triple immersion. Also, many Orthodox are baptised by simple sparkling... (I speak about Orthodox cacopraxis, unfortunately). Bad practice, without doubt... but does Church lost Holy Spirit somehow? I don't think so.

Basic question is, wheather we identify borders of Church with borders of Grace of God.

Interesting thing is, both approaches to acceptance of Roman Catholics could be traced back to Balsamon. One one place he wrote Roman Catholics should be re-baptised, on other they should be accepted trough confession...  ::)

Antonis said:
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.
Amen.
 

Khomes

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
27
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Faith
Genuine Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction
Matthewites- Metropolitan Kirykos
DeniseDenise said:
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.

Sorry to disappoint, I was not baptized as a child. my parents are not Christian. I became catholic about two years ago. and yes it was just a small amount of water poured over the head
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Antonis said:
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.
Preach it, brother!   ;D
 

Khomes

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
27
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Faith
Genuine Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction
Matthewites- Metropolitan Kirykos
also I would like to thank everybody for their responses. I am definitely taking all of this into consideration.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Probably more Baptism is done by pouring than with tripple imersion. Also, many Orthodox are baptised by simple sparkilng... (I speak about Orthodox cacopraxis, unfortunatley). Bad practice, without doubt... but does Church lost Holy Spirit somehow? I dont think so.

Basic question is, whather we identify borders fo Church with borders of Grace of God.

Interesting thing is, both approaches to acceptance of Roman Catholics could be traced back to Balsamon. One one place he wrote Roman Catholics should be rebaptised, on other they should be accepted trough confession...  
It is certainly a confusing issue, which, I'm sure you would agree, is all the more reason it should be left to real theologians and not internet pseudo-experts!

Opinions range from recognizing the validity of Latin baptisms to claiming that chrismation "fills" the baptism with grace to demanding rebaptism of all non-Orthodox throughout history. The simple reality is, if the Church claims that a person is a member of the Church, that person is a member of the Church. If a bishop deemed it necessary that Latins be received through communion and confession of faith then that is how they will be received and they will be members of the Church. Whether or not that is correct is a matter of debate, but it is acceptable. This is the power that God has given to His Church.

Preach it, brother! 
  :)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Khomes, tell your entire story to your priest, let him and his bishop decide how to handle your case, and follow their counsel in humble obedience. DO NOT go looking for another priest, bishop, or elder who will give you what you want. And most importantly, DO NOT follow any of the contrary advice you read on this thread, seeing that much of it is offered by armchair "elders" and "canon lawyers" who think they know the Orthodox Faith (and you) better than your own priest and bishop.
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
Peacemaker 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.    
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.
So you've been told by an elder that elders are on their own level of authority.  Talk about an elder grandstanding one's self and others considered elders. Just because someone says something it's not true. Would a humble man of God make a statement of such grandeur that I would believe anything else he had to say? Probably not. And I'm just going on what you are saying. 
 

Ekdikos

Elder
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Antonis said:
It is certainly a confusing issue, which, I'm sure you would agree, is all the more reason it should be left to real theologians and not internet pseudo-experts!
I agree with my whole heart. :) I think, this should be one of topics on next Grand Council, but will this matter be discussed, I dont know.


Antonis said:
Opinions range from recognizing the validity of Latin baptisms to claiming that chrismation "fills" the baptism with grace to demanding rebaptism of all non-Orthodox throughout history.
I would just add, that in Russian practice, there is cnversion by confession of faith. Like Greek-Catholic Constantine Simon, few weeks ago.

Antonis said:
The simple reality is, if the Church claims that a person is a member of the Church, that person is a member of the Church. If a bishop deemed it necessary that Latins be received through communion and confession of faith then that is how they will be received and they will be members of the Church. Whether or not that is correct is a matter of debate, but it is acceptable. This is the power that God has given to His Church.
 


Well said. :)
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
I guess it doesn't matter what we think about the correct reception of converts because ultimately the bishop decides. No sense debating the history and practices.  It'll only confuse the op and his bishop already told him how he is to be received.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Ekdikos said:
Antonis said:
It is certainly a confusing issue, which, I'm sure you would agree, is all the more reason it should be left to real theologians and not internet pseudo-experts!
I agree with my whole heart. :) I think, this should be one of topics on next Grand Council, but will this matter be discussed, I dont know.


Antonis said:
Opinions range from recognizing the validity of Latin baptisms to claiming that chrismation "fills" the baptism with grace to demanding rebaptism of all non-Orthodox throughout history.
I would just add, that in Russian practice, there is cnversion by confession of faith. Like Greek-Catholic Constantine Simon, few weeks ago.

[
As did the EP Greeks in the past. Any members of an ACROD parish who have been there all of their lives and are over 76 years old were received just as Ekdikos notes: by confession of Faith. This included clergy and the Bishop-elect, all of whom were baptized and chrismated as Greek Catholics and the clergy were simply vested and received as Orthodox priests. This includes my late parents and grandparents. My dad was ordained as an Orthodox priest by the aforementioned Bishop Orestes several years later, the Bishop  who was received as a priest by the EP and consecrated Bishop some seventy six years ago at the Patriarchal Church of St. George in the Phanar.  

The same holds true for former Greek Catholics currently received into Orthodoxy in Slovakia and Ukraine.

I hope no one here is questioning their status as one might conclude from the posts of some posters here.
 

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:
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.
I've met and spoken several times with almost all the OCA bishops on earth from 2002-present, in addition to a handful of GOA and Antiochian bishops and a slew of others.  I'm not unaware of the existence among them of bishops who did not live in a monastery for several years before election, but were simply tonsured at some point before episcopal ordination.  It's true that "a week in a monastery does not make one a monk", but monastic tonsure certainly does, and everyone I've met received this before their ordination. 
 

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:
Maria said:
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.
I've met and spoken several times with almost all the OCA bishops on earth from 2002-present, in addition to a handful of GOA and Antiochian bishops and a slew of others.  I'm not unaware of the existence among them of bishops who did not live in a monastery for several years before election, but were simply tonsured at some point before episcopal ordination.  It's true that "a week in a monastery does not make one a monk", but monastic tonsure certainly does, and everyone I've met received this before their ordination. 
Ditto, here as well.
 

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:
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.
There's nothing to forgive.  But I don't think I was being quick to judge.  Advising someone, based on "I've been told", to go to a monastery to get what they want rather than submitting to the decision of the spiritual father of the local Church (i.e., the bishop) is about as anti-monastic a suggestion as someone can make, because obedience is critical to the monastic life (as in the Christian life more generally).  I'm not criticising you, but it is a bad suggestion based on a faulty theology, and IMO that is precisely what the OP does not need. 
 

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
podkarpatska 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.
Mor is correct. You are providing erroneous advice.
I don't think jah777 is providing erroneous advice (actually, I don't see any advice, just an opinion).  But I do think it is a little odd that he, usually eager to defend the so-called "canonical" EO Church (i.e., the fourteen/fifteen autocephalous Churches in communion with the ancient Patriarchates) against Old Calendarists, is suddenly using their arguments. 

Either the canonical bishops of the Church have the right to determine if, when, and how economy is to be applied within their dioceses or they do not.  If they do, then we can discuss how "strictness" is better, but we cannot besmirch "economy" as worse because in either case the person received into the Church is received into the Church. 

I believe there are times and places for discussing with one's bishops why one policy is better than another, and I myself have spoken with my own bishops about this matter in such times and places.  But there are also times and places where this discussion shouldn't happen.  One such time and place is after the bishop has been apprised of the situation of potential catechumen X and has decided to receive him by economy.  Another such time and place is on an internet forum when potential catechumen X expresses reservations about this and ought to be encouraged by members of the Church to trust the Church rather than his own (mis)understanding.  Encourage the latter and you risk losing a soul to save your ideology.   
 

jah777

Archon
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
podkarpatska 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.
Mor is correct. You are providing erroneous advice.
I don't think jah777 is providing erroneous advice (actually, I don't see any advice, just an opinion).  But I do think it is a little odd that he, usually eager to defend the so-called "canonical" EO Church (i.e., the fourteen/fifteen autocephalous Churches in communion with the ancient Patriarchates) against Old Calendarists, is suddenly using their arguments. 
There is a reason why the Old Calendarists do as they do, and there is much that they are correct about.  They were not correct, however, to break communion over the adoption of the New Calendar which is in fact the sole reason for their schism.
 

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:
podkarpatska 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.
Mor is correct. You are providing erroneous advice.
I don't think jah777 is providing erroneous advice (actually, I don't see any advice, just an opinion).  But I do think it is a little odd that he, usually eager to defend the so-called "canonical" EO Church (i.e., the fourteen/fifteen autocephalous Churches in communion with the ancient Patriarchates) against Old Calendarists, is suddenly using their arguments.  

Either the canonical bishops of the Church have the right to determine if, when, and how economy is to be applied within their dioceses or they do not.  If they do, then we can discuss how "strictness" is better, but we cannot besmirch "economy" as worse because in either case the person received into the Church is received into the Church.  

I believe there are times and places for discussing with one's bishops why one policy is better than another, and I myself have spoken with my own bishops about this matter in such times and places.  But there are also times and places where this discussion shouldn't happen.  One such time and place is after the bishop has been apprised of the situation of potential catechumen X and has decided to receive him by economy.  Another such time and place is on an internet forum when potential catechumen X expresses reservations about this and ought to be encouraged by members of the Church to trust the Church rather than his own (mis)understanding.  Encourage the latter and you risk losing a soul to save your ideology.    
Once again, Mor has expressed what I was trying to say (rather rudely and I apologize for that) to jah. But I do stand by my point that there is not a 'one size fits all' answer to this question which has been debated and bandied about by Orthodox theologians for centuries and centuries. Perhaps there should be some clarity - especially in a multi-cultural society such as the USA where many different Eastern Orthodox positions on such matters 'collide', but to date that is not 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
jah777 said:
Mor Ephrem said:
podkarpatska 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.
Mor is correct. You are providing erroneous advice.
I don't think jah777 is providing erroneous advice (actually, I don't see any advice, just an opinion).  But I do think it is a little odd that he, usually eager to defend the so-called "canonical" EO Church (i.e., the fourteen/fifteen autocephalous Churches in communion with the ancient Patriarchates) against Old Calendarists, is suddenly using their arguments. 
There is a reason why the Old Calendarists do as they do, and there is much that they are correct about.  They were not correct, however, to break communion over the adoption of the New Calendar which is in fact the sole reason for their schism.
It's telling that you chose to focus on my first paragraph and not on the other two.  Your bias shows. 
 

jah777

Archon
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
jah777 said:
Mor Ephrem said:
podkarpatska 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.
Mor is correct. You are providing erroneous advice.
I don't think jah777 is providing erroneous advice (actually, I don't see any advice, just an opinion).  But I do think it is a little odd that he, usually eager to defend the so-called "canonical" EO Church (i.e., the fourteen/fifteen autocephalous Churches in communion with the ancient Patriarchates) against Old Calendarists, is suddenly using their arguments. 
There is a reason why the Old Calendarists do as they do, and there is much that they are correct about.  They were not correct, however, to break communion over the adoption of the New Calendar which is in fact the sole reason for their schism.
It's telling that you chose to focus on my first paragraph and not on the other two.  Your bias shows. 
Your presumptuousness is showing.  ;)

Sometimes, I simply refrain from commenting on a particular message or part of a message because I may not have the time or interest to get into a constant back-and-forth on a certain subject.  My silence is neither approval nor disapproval. 
 

Xenia

Harmless Little Fuzzball
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
179
Reaction score
7
Points
18
Location
California
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
ROCOR
I was received by Chrismation 12 years ago, and believe me,  this issue nearly destroyed my entire conversion.

I had a friend from a rather strict (may not be the right word so forgive me if I offend) jurisdiction who I expected to be so joyful when she learned I was converting to Orthodoxy from our common evangelical background.  But when I said it would be by Chrismation,  she went ballistic, saying I would not be fully Orthodox unless I was baptized,  etc. Called me several times long distance,  crying and was very upset with me.  Really made a big deal out of it so I went to my priest who, like the OP,  said the bishop said only by Chrismation,  don't you dare baptize that woman!  My priest said the Devil was trying to interfere with my conversion and that really rang a bell with me and besides,  I was not going to start off my whole Orthodox journey by trying to defy my bishop!  So I decided to put the unpleasantness with my friend behind me and to accept Chrismation with cheerfulness and gratitude.

When I was baptized as a Baptist (full immersion in Lake Erie) at age 12 it had zero impact on me.  I was a rotten kid before and an even rottener kid afterwards.  Zero impact.  Never felt like I was truly "saved."  But after my Chrismation,  I was a new person.  It had an immense impact on me and for the first time in my life,  I believed I really was a Christian.  So don't doubt the grace of a "mere" Chrismation! 

For years afterwards,  I was hectored my certain people who felt I needed to be baptized again.  Some of them had gone off to Greece, believe it or not, to get re-baptized.  It was evident that they felt I was lacking something, and for a while they made me feel like a 2nd class Orthodox, if I was Orthodox at all.  But to get rebaptized would be saying my wonderful Chrismation experience was meaningless,  and I knew that wasn't true.  So I mumbled "Oh,  maybe some day" to them and tried to avoid the topic.

Then we began attending a ROCOR parish which generally does accept converts by baptism and I said to myself "Xenia,  talk to the priest and whatever he says,  do it."  But he was fine with my Chrismation-only reception and told me it would be quite wrong to be rebaptized because that would be calling God a liar by implying he didn't forgive my sins at Chrismation,  and all those years I took Communion.... So this very traditional priest accepted me warmly and whole-heartedly and told me to quit worrying about it,  and I took his advice to heart with great relief and have never felt 2nd class ever again.

My opinion is this:  If you can be baptized,  go for it.  If not,  accept Christmation with gratitude  and keep in mind that the Evil One might be trying to steal your joy.  This will be the best day of your whole life so rejoice and be exceedingly glad!
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Xenia said:
I was received by Chrismation 12 years ago, and believe me,  this issue nearly destroyed my entire conversion.

I had a friend from a rather strict (may not be the right word so forgive me if I offend) jurisdiction who I expected to be so joyful when she learned I was converting to Orthodoxy from our common evangelical background.  But when I said it would be by Chrismation,  she went ballistic, saying I would not be fully Orthodox unless I was baptized,  etc. Called me several times long distance,  crying and was very upset with me.  Really made a big deal out of it so I went to my priest who, like the OP,  said the bishop said only by Chrismation,  don't you dare baptize that woman!  My priest said the Devil was trying to interfere with my conversion and that really rang a bell with me and besides,  I was not going to start off my whole Orthodox journey by trying to defy my bishop!  So I decided to put the unpleasantness with my friend behind me and to accept Chrismation with cheerfulness and gratitude.

When I was baptized as a Baptist (full immersion in Lake Erie) at age 12 it had zero impact on me.  I was a rotten kid before and an even rottener kid afterwards.  Zero impact.  Never felt like I was truly "saved."  But after my Chrismation,  I was a new person.  It had an immense impact on me and for the first time in my life,  I believed I really was a Christian.  So don't doubt the grace of a "mere" Chrismation! 

For years afterwards,  I was hectored my certain people who felt I needed to be baptized again.  Some of them had gone off to Greece, believe it or not, to get re-baptized.  It was evident that they felt I was lacking something, and for a while they made me feel like a 2nd class Orthodox, if I was Orthodox at all.  But to get rebaptized would be saying my wonderful Chrismation experience was meaningless,  and I knew that wasn't true.  So I mumbled "Oh,  maybe some day" to them and tried to avoid the topic.

Then we began attending a ROCOR parish which generally does accept converts by baptism and I said to myself "Xenia,  talk to the priest and whatever he says,  do it."  But he was fine with my Chrismation-only reception and told me it would be quite wrong to be rebaptized because that would be calling God a liar by implying he didn't forgive my sins at Chrismation,  and all those years I took Communion.... So this very traditional priest accepted me warmly and whole-heartedly and told me to quit worrying about it,  and I took his advice to heart with great relief and have never felt 2nd class ever again.

My opinion is this:  If you can be baptized,  go for it.  If not,  accept Christmation with gratitude  and keep in mind that the Evil One might be trying to steal your joy.  This will be the best day of your whole life so rejoice and be exceedingly glad!
Thank you for this.  :)
 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
4
Points
0
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
There's no Ecumene.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Age
51
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Maybe the best recommendation would just be for the OP to wait for this council to occur.......before making any drastic move like trusting apostolic succession, his jurisdiction's hierarchy or any of that nonsense.




ps.  no council is 'ecumenical' until pretty much the -next- council after it, when it has been accepted.  They don't convene an 'Ecumenical Council', they convene a 'council'.




 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,881
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
Do you have a transcript?

The Metropolis of Denver decides on how to receive converts - whether by baptism or chrismation - on a case by case basis.  Why wait for an ecumenical council to decide?  ???
 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
4
Points
0
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
Do you have a transcript?
I am the first caller, skip to 8:22 to get to the question  www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxylive/june_16_2013

 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Antonis said:
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
There's no Ecumene.
You know what I am referring to. We've had 7 Ecumenical Councils and are over due for an 8th. IMO anyway :)

Again forgive me if I've upset anyone by bringing this up.
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,881
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey
Peacemaker said:
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
Do you have a transcript?
I am the first caller, skip to 8:22 to get to the question  www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxylive/june_16_2013
I can't download 60 minute MP3 files on my system - I'm puzzled at why some converts (and clergy alike) insist on re-baptism.
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Peacemaker said:
Antonis said:
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
There's no Ecumene.
You know what I am referring to. We've had 7 Ecumenical Councils and are over due for an 8th. IMO anyway :)
I know exactly what you are referring to. It's a common but misinformed notion of what an Ecumenical Council is, in my opinion. There will be no more Ecumenical Councils as there is no Ecumene. Universally accepted councils, sure. The Empire is long gone.
 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
4
Points
0
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
Do you have a transcript?
I am the first caller, skip to 8:22 to get to the question  www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxylive/june_16_2013
I can't play 60 minute MP3 files on my system - I'm puzzled at why some converts (and clerics alike) insist on re-baptism.
Not a "re-baptism" it's a correctional baptism to make right any wrongs that could have been made
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,881
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey
Peacemaker said:
Not a "re-baptism" it's a correctional baptism to make right any wrongs that could have been made
One baptism is one baptism, unless one was baptized in the name of Zeus, Apollo and Hermes - then I think a correctional baptism is necessary.  :laugh:


 

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:
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
Do you have a transcript?
I am the first caller, skip to 8:22 to get to the question  www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxylive/june_16_2013
I can't play 60 minute MP3 files on my system - I'm puzzled at why some converts (and clerics alike) insist on re-baptism.
Not a "re-baptism" it's a correctional baptism to make right any wrongs that could have been made
What is the rite for "correctional baptism"?  What is the text?  What liturgical book is it contained in?  How does it differ from a normal baptism?  What "wrongs" does it correct?  Under what circumstances is this rite performed? 
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Age
51
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
correctional baptisms occur in correctional facilities?
 

Peacemaker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
Do you have a transcript?
I am the first caller, skip to 8:22 to get to the question  www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxylive/june_16_2013
I can't play 60 minute MP3 files on my system - I'm puzzled at why some converts (and clerics alike) insist on re-baptism.
Not a "re-baptism" it's a correctional baptism to make right any wrongs that could have been made
What is the rite for "correctional baptism"?  What is the text?  What liturgical book is it contained in?  How does it differ from a normal baptism?  What "wrongs" does it correct?  Under what circumstances is this rite performed?  




Mor Ephrem said:
What is the rite for "correctional baptism"?
Close to a normal baptism, a godparent can be present. Since the candidate hasn't had an orthodox baptism preformed prior there is no redoing of any previous rites. When it gets down to the part about Holy Chrism, the priest makes sure not to re-chrism any spots that were chrismed during the prior chrismation.  
Mor Ephrem said:
What is the text?
Same as a normal baptism in the Orthodox church since the candidate hasn't had an orthodox baptism but some things are changed. For example, from what I remember the priest took out a phrases such as "I baptist ____ in the name of" (because it isn't a normal baptism) and added "I ask for the correction of any wrongs that may have been made in the name of" (something along those lines)
Mor Ephrem said:
What liturgical book is it contained in?
Same as above
Mor Ephrem said:
How does it differ from a normal baptism?
Because we accept ONE baptism, the priest will mention this and states that it is to correct wongs that were made  
Mor Ephrem said:
What "wrongs" does it correct?
Well for example, when I was baptized in a protestant church I was only put under water once, and not three times. Wrongs is referring to any action that took place outside the protection and spiritual guidance of the Orthodox Church  
Mor Ephrem said:
Under what circumstances is this rite performed?  
That's normally up to the priest or abbot. In almost all Russian monasteries here in America, if the Abbot finds out you were only Chrismated, the day you are brought into the monastery to be a novice they will preform this correctional baptism. The same is true for all of the Holy Mountain from what I was told. I've had abbots from both Russian and Greek monasteries tell me to come to their monastery and they would preform the rite, and I hadn't even mentioned anything to them in the first place. They just heard that I was a convert through Chrismation.


All and all you need to talk to your priest about this and DO NOT decide to do it on your own. As my priest told me, "If God wants you to have a correctional baptism preformed, He'll have it done."
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,659
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
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
This view is nothing less than a denigration of chrismated individuals, be they laymen, clergy or saints, as "less than Orthodox". This is patently false, both from historical practice, and from Church teaching, and should be condemned in the strongest terms.  :mad: :mad:
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,659
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Faith
Orthodox
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.
Monastics who hear the confessions of bishops are simply confessors. They do not override the established hierarchical authority in and of themselves. Whatever counsel they give is for that individual alone. They in no way speak for the Church as a whole.
 

DeniseDenise

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Age
51
Faith
Does it matter?
Jurisdiction
Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Peacemaker said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Peacemaker said:
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
SolEX01 said:
Peacemaker said:
jah777 said:
In the Creed we say, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
When the Creed was written we didn't have all these different denominations of Christian church. Now it's said have heretical baptisms and non-heretical. I've talked to Fr. Evan Armatas of St. Spyridon in Loveland Co about this on his podcast Orthodoxy Live and the point was made that we need an ecumenical council to settle these things.
Do you have a transcript?
I am the first caller, skip to 8:22 to get to the question  www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxylive/june_16_2013
I can't play 60 minute MP3 files on my system - I'm puzzled at why some converts (and clerics alike) insist on re-baptism.
Not a "re-baptism" it's a correctional baptism to make right any wrongs that could have been made
What is the rite for "correctional baptism"?  What is the text?  What liturgical book is it contained in?  How does it differ from a normal baptism?  What "wrongs" does it correct?  Under what circumstances is this rite performed?  




Mor Ephrem said:
What is the rite for "correctional baptism"?
Close to a normal baptism, a godparent can be present. Since the candidate hasn't had an orthodox baptism preformed prior there is no redoing of any previous rites. When it gets down to the part about Holy Chrism, the priest makes sure not to re-chrism any spots that were chrismed during the prior chrismation.  
Mor Ephrem said:
What is the text?
Same as a normal baptism in the Orthodox church since the candidate hasn't had an orthodox baptism but some things are changed. For example, from what I remember the priest took out a phrases such as "I baptist ____ in the name of" (because it isn't a normal baptism) and added "I ask for the correction of any wrongs that may have been made in the name of" (something along those lines)
Mor Ephrem said:
What liturgical book is it contained in?
Same as above
Mor Ephrem said:
How does it differ from a normal baptism?
Because we accept ONE baptism, the priest will mention this and states that it is to correct wongs that were made  
Mor Ephrem said:
What "wrongs" does it correct?
Well for example, when I was baptized in a protestant church I was only put under water once, and not three times. Wrongs is referring to any action that took place outside the protection and spiritual guidance of the Orthodox Church  
Mor Ephrem said:
Under what circumstances is this rite performed?  
That's normally up to the priest or abbot. In almost all Russian monasteries here in America, if the Abbot finds out you were only Chrismated, the day you are brought into the monastery to be a novice they will preform this correctional baptism. The same is true for all of the Holy Mountain from what I was told. I've had abbots from both Russian and Greek monasteries tell me to come to their monastery and they would preform the rite, and I hadn't even mentioned anything to them in the first place. They just heard that I was a convert through Chrismation.


All and all you need to talk to your priest about this and DO NOT decide to do it on your own. As my priest told me, "If God wants you to have a correctional baptism preformed, He'll have it done."


*gets out the popcorn in advance of the response*
 

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
Lord have mercy.

Most Holy Theotokos, save us.
 
Top