Baptism by three-fold immersion

[Dimitris]

Hallo!

As far as I know, baptism in EO Church is performed by three-fold complete immersion under water. Now I saw this video (mms://stream1.orf.at/religion/or060820_1.wmv) (dealing with the Russian-Orthodox Church in Vienna, Austria) which obviously at the very begining shows a baptism, but the baby is rather being poured than being immersed. I would be happy if someone was able to understand the words of the Priest in the beginning. Is it common practice to do the immersion like the Priest in the video?

Dimitris

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hallo!

As far as I know, baptism in EO Church is performed by three-fold complete immersion under water. Now I saw this video (mms://stream1.orf.at/religion/or060820_1.wmv) (dealing with the Russian-Orthodox Church in Vienna, Austria) which obviously at the very begining shows a baptism, but the baby is rather being poured than being immersed. I would be happy if someone was able to understand the words of the Priest in the beginning. Is it common practice to do the immersion like the Priest in the video?

Dimitris

The priest first says in Russian to the child as he's being put into the font, "don't worry, don't worry, it'll be alright."

Then in Slavonic, "the servant of God, Mark is baptized in the name of the Father. Amen and of the Son. Amen and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

The first part although not found actually printed in the service must be the result of many, many centuries of oral tradition since that's what the priest always seems to say :).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

The priest first says in Russian to the child as he's being put into the font, "don't worry, don't worry, it'll be alright."


Oh really? I must be doing it wrong then. I usually say something like. "heh, heh, heh - you don't know whats coming next kid, this is going to be fun." and then turn and and do the part that's in the book.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Oh really? I must be doing it wrong then. I usually say something like. "heh, heh, heh - you don't know whats coming next kid, this is going to be fun." and then turn and and do the part that's in the book.

Fr David Moser

I do that part too. But in English of course, not Slavonic.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Dimitris]

The priest first says in Russian to the child as he's being put into the font, "don't worry, don't worry, it'll be alright."

Then in Slavonic, "the servant of God, Mark is baptized in the name of the Father. Amen and of the Son. Amen and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
Well, I could have guessed this, it really seems to be the same everywhere. ;) But what does interest me more, do you also pour the kid like the Priest in the video or do you actually immerse it completely under water? Actually, I have been at two baptisms in Greece, but this was years ago and I was a little kid then, not noting a thing like this.

Dimitris

[Father David Moser]

Full immersion - three times. Haven't lost a kid yet.

Fr David Moser

[Mina Soliman]

It worries me sometimes that some clergy do not know properly how to baptize a child. I saw a bishop baptize a baby where the baby came out choking at the end of the triple immersion. Someone ran to perform the Heimlich maneuver. This is a very embarrassing situation, and one that needs attention.

I've seen other clergy where they don't baptize the head, just the body of the child, while they take some water and pour on the head after every bodily immersion. There is also the Didache that mentions an "option" where if immersion is hard or impossible, that pouring is permissible.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

God bless.

[Father David Moser]

I've seen two different "styles" of immersing an infant. One is to cradle the child in your arms over the water and kind of "roll" them in and out in three quick dunks. An infant has a natural reflex that prevents him/her from inhaling while under water. The other style is where the infant is held under his arms and dipped feet first (a deep font is necessary for this, especially when you have big babies). I personally prefer the first method as I feel it is safer for the child who generally does not yet have the strength or development at 40 days to hold his head up on his own and thus the "arm cradle" gives full support to the infant. Haven't lost a baby in the baptismal font yet (and don't know of anyone who ever has)

BTW, a "heimlich maneuver" would be pretty useless for a child who had gotten a mouthful of water since the heimlich maneuver is designed to dislodge a solid object blocking the airway. It would do absolutely nothing for liquids since it relies on a burst of air pressure from inside the lungs to push the blocking object and dislodge it. Liquids don't block the airway in the same manner. I suspect what you saw might have been an overanxious parent (got lots of those).

Fr David Moser

[Elena]

If the baby is ill or it's very cold then sometimes baptism is done by pouring water over the head, a sort of deluge. Maybe this was the case in the video?

[Olga]

One priest I know uses the technique of cupping one hand under the baby's bottom, and covering the baby's face with the other. As the majority of babies he baptises are no older than two months old, this works very well. Little babies of that age have not outgrown their "diving reflex" yet, so the hand over the face is quite safe, and also results in little or no crying, usually little more than a squawk or two. One more advantage in "getting in early" when it comes to arranging baptisms - practically as well as spiritually beneficial!

[Dimitris]

May be interesting: http://www.stanet.ch/apd/news/1410.html

In Germany, several Christian denominations signed a formal agreement on recognizing each other's baptism. In the German text of the statement it is said, "we recognize every baptism (...) done by immersion or pouring of water". The whole Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Ethiopian and the Armenian Church also signed this agreement.

What do you think about this agreement? I personally feel a little bit uneasy, for pouring water seems to be generally accepted now. But the Greek word "vaptizo" means specifically "to immerse". There are other Greek words for pouring, rinsing etc.

Dimitris

[Herman Blaydoe]

What do you think about this agreement?
Well, for all intents and purposes, it is simply false, unless they are accepting converts by only a confession of faith or actually allowing intercommunion. If not, then it really means nothing and merely confuses the issues. Orthodoxy does not "recognize" baptisms, it corrects them through Holy Chrismation, at least that is how this simple mind understands it.

[Mina Soliman]

That's how I came to understand too. Now, for the most part, the Coptic Church might not agree to a statement like this, as the Coptic Church is known among the OO's to baptize any converts from Catholicism or Protestants, with the recent exception of EO's, which the Coptic Church, in the right consistent theological language would say they would "accept" and which has nothing to do with "correcting it" by Chrismation.

But I would agree with Herman that "accept" is not even acceptable for those Orthodox churches who do not "rebaptize."

Also, it makes me wonder. When persons received from Catholicism who were not immersed in their own baptisms, but are said to be baptized anyway by pouring in a Trinitarian manner, what do the Orthodox churches do, like the Antiochian Church, who pretty much chrismates those who were "baptized in a Trinitarian manner?" Do they baptize the person in immersion and do they simply go on correcting that "pouring of water" baptism by Chrismation?

God bless.

[Herman Blaydoe]

While there is certainly a most correct way to perform the baptism, even the Didache recognizes permissable variations based on circumstance. It is, of course, a quandry when a "lesser" form becomes the norm, something is in danger of becoming lost.

And also, as I understand it, there is no such thing as "rebaptism". "I believe in ONE BAPTISM for the remission of sins." A person is either baptised in an Orthodox manner or a baptism received in a heterodox church is corrected and becomes an Orthodox baptism.

[Mina Soliman]

While there is certainly a most correct way to perform the baptism, even the Didache recognizes permissable variations based on circumstance. It is, of course, a quandry when a "lesser" form becomes the norm, something is in danger of becoming lost.

And also, as I understand it, there is no such thing as "rebaptism". "I believe in ONE BAPTISM for the remission of sins." A person is either baptised in an Orthodox manner or a baptism received in a heterodox church is corrected and becomes an Orthodox baptism.

The word "rebaptism" is used for those churches who do not feel that a heterodox baptism counts and is not "corrected" because they did not have the Orthodox faith and Orthodox priest to perform it. So, even if the "traditionalist" churches wouldn't call it "rebaptism" either, since the former was a false baptism and you only receive "one [true] baptism," I'm using the word for the sake of the easiness in writing about it, without worrying about technicalities, which we all know the implications.

Now, I'm wondering if one must be "rebaptized" if one was not in a "full-immersion" baptism before, although it was Trinitarian?

God bless.

[Kris]

Now, I'm wondering if one must be "rebaptized" if one was not in a "full-immersion" baptism before, although it was Trinitarian?


Provided the 'pouring' was done in accordance with the practice described in the Didache, the form of the baptism is seen as valid - albeit undesirable - and so 'rebaptism' is not needed for this reason.

[Father Serafim]

The term 'rebaptism' is not correct. One either baptizes or does not baptize. However it is permissible and I believe necessary on occasion to correct a baptism. This involves triple-immersion and the full service. The 'missing' parts are corrected.

Of course it is sometimes necessary to baptize by pouring as in the case of a sick person who is bedridden. I have done this myself several times.

[Michael Astley]

May be interesting: http://www.stanet.ch/apd/news/1410.html

In Germany, several Christian denominations signed a formal agreement on recognizing each other's baptism. In the German text of the statement it is said, "we recognize every baptism (...) done by immersion or pouring of water". The whole Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Ethiopian and the Armenian Church also signed this agreement.

What do you think about this agreement? I personally feel a little bit uneasy, for pouring water seems to be generally accepted now. But the Greek word "vaptizo" means specifically "to immerse". There are other Greek words for pouring, rinsing etc.

Dimitris

Dear Dimitris,

I was sent an English translation of that agreement some months back by somebody who was quite forceful in challenging my "assertion" that the Orthodox Church does not recognise heterodox sacramental rites as being true Mysteries of the Church. He was convinced that he had found "proof" that I was wrong.

The problem is that he was looking at this from a perspective that was not Orthodox and did not understand that we do not have the same concept of validity that our Catholic friends have. If we talk about validity at all where the Mysteries are concerned, we are referring to the actual form and rite used. Recognition of that does not imply that what has happened is actually a Baptism. That can only happen within the Church. What it is saying is that the method, formula, and text used were "valid", i.e. they were such that, should the person in later life wish to join the Church, that heterodox baptismal rite would be considered sufficient for economia to be applied, thereby making that a true Baptism upon the person's entry into the Church.

As for what my own thoughts are about that document, there are a few of them.

I think that it is perhaps not very helpful and potentially quite misleading. Many heterodox do not understand Orthodoxy. They do not understand our ecclesiology or our understanding of the Mysteries within that. Words that we use to refer to our Orthodox concepts are the same words that they use to refer to very different ideas that do not exist in Orthodoxy. Incorrect assumptions are often made as a result. Therefore, I do not think that it is helpful for local Orthodox churches to appear to sign up to agreements such as this one. It creates the impression, however unintentionally, that we condone and recognise as healthful what we actually believe at best to be a pious but misguided act, and at worst a parody on the Mysteries, and thereby gives the heterodox the idea that we consider their continued state of separation from the Church to be acceptable, rather than us calling them to accept Christ's loving call.
I think that it is dangerous for Orthodox churches to assume that, just because they have examined the baptismal rites of a heterodox confession and found them to be in keeping with Orthodox practice, that ministers of that confession actually perform those baptismal rites as they ought to. In my Anglican days, I witnessed "baptisms" being carried out "in the name of the Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Sustainer". The Persons of the Trinity were referred to by actions in relation to creation, and there was no repetition of "and of the", showing the unity of the three Persons in the one Name. Apart from the fact that it is an obvious departure from the formula given to us by Our Lord, it is the modalist heresy if ever I saw it. Yet, an Orthodox bishop would never know that this happens just by looking at the Anglican baptismal rites. Similarly, a few years back many Catholics in Australia had to go again through the baptismal rites of their confession when their bishop found out that some of their liberal priests were using this modalist formula. It happens more often than any of us knows and, while I do not doubt that God is perfectly capable of making whole all things, I do not think that we can make assumptions that these rites and ceremonies have been done in the Name of the Persons of the Trinity.
I also think that joint statements such as this one with the heterodox confessions may cause confusion among Orthodox people who may think that this is an acceptance of the effectualness of heterodox Mysteries. They may come to believe that this is the case or it may scandalise them because they know that it is not, (which is why many people are now in Old Calendarism). It may also cause them to question the Truth of Orthodoxy when they see apparently conflicting messages coming from the Church.
I don't understand why we cannot simply just baptise. In most cases it is not difficult to fill a font or other receptacle, or to find a body of water. I really do have reservations about the reception of heterodox by economia as standard. Theologically, Baptism is the norm for entry into the Church and I, personally, feel that that ought to be reflected in the Church's practice, extending economia where pastoral necessity dictates, according to the needs in the particulatr circumstances. Yet, I am not a priest and this is not my call to make. I must trust our hierarchs and priests to do what is right according to the needs in the part of the world where their flocks are.

[Kosta]

Dear Dimitris,

I was sent an English translation of that agreement some months back by somebody who was quite forceful in challenging my "assertion" that the Orthodox Church does not recognise heterodox sacramental rites as being true Mysteries of the Church. He was convinced that he had found "proof" that I was wrong.

The problem is that he was looking at this from a perspective that was not Orthodox and did not understand that we do not have the same concept of validity that our Catholic friends have. If we talk about validity at all where the Mysteries are concerned, we are referring to the actual form and rite used. Recognition of that does not imply that what has happened is actually a Baptism. That can only happen within the Church. What it is saying is that the method, formula, and text used were "valid", i.e. they were such that, should the person in later life wish to join the Church, that heterodox baptismal rite would be considered sufficient for economia to be applied, thereby making that a true Baptism upon the person's entry into the Church.

As for what my own thoughts are about that document, there are a few of them.

I think that it is perhaps not very helpful and potentially quite misleading. Many heterodox do not understand Orthodoxy. They do not understand our ecclesiology or our understanding of the Mysteries within that. Words that we use to refer to our Orthodox concepts are the same words that they use to refer to very different ideas that do not exist in Orthodoxy. Incorrect assumptions are often made as a result. Therefore, I do not think that it is helpful for local Orthodox churches to appear to sign up to agreements such as this one. It creates the impression, however unintentionally, that we condone and recognise as healthful what we actually believe at best to be a pious but misguided act, and at worst a parody on the Mysteries, and thereby gives the heterodox the idea that we consider their continued state of separation from the Church to be acceptable, rather than us calling them to accept Christ's loving call.
I think that it is dangerous for Orthodox churches to assume that, just because they have examined the baptismal rites of a heterodox confession and found them to be in keeping with Orthodox practice, that ministers of that confession actually perform those baptismal rites as they ought to. In my Anglican days, I witnessed "baptisms" being carried out "in the name of the Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Sustainer". The Persons of the Trinity were referred to by actions in relation to creation, and there was no repetition of "and of the", showing the unity of the three Persons in the one Name. Apart from the fact that it is an obvious departure from the formula given to us by Our Lord, it is the modalist heresy if ever I saw it. Yet, an Orthodox bishop would never know that this happens just by looking at the Anglican baptismal rites. Similarly, a few years back many Catholics in Australia had to go again through the baptismal rites of their confession when their bishop found out that some of their liberal priests were using this modalist formula. It happens more often than any of us knows and, while I do not doubt that God is perfectly capable of making whole all things, I do not think that we can make assumptions that these rites and ceremonies have been done in the Name of the Persons of the Trinity.
I also think that joint statements such as this one with the heterodox confessions may cause confusion among Orthodox people who may think that this is an acceptance of the effectualness of heterodox Mysteries. They may come to believe that this is the case or it may scandalise them because they know that it is not, (which is why many people are now in Old Calendarism). It may also cause them to question the Truth of Orthodoxy when they see apparently conflicting messages coming from the Church.
I don't understand why we cannot simply just baptise. In most cases it is not difficult to fill a font or other receptacle, or to find a body of water. I really do have reservations about the reception of heterodox by economia as standard. Theologically, Baptism is the norm for entry into the Church and I, personally, feel that that ought to be reflected in the Church's practice, extending economia where pastoral necessity dictates, according to the needs in the particulatr circumstances. Yet, I am not a priest and this is not my call to make. I must trust our hierarchs and priests to do what is right according to the needs in the part of the world where their flocks are.

I agree. The canons of the Church recognize a correct "form" of baptism as both a Trintiarian Formula and triple immersion. The canons allow for chrismation only (for those groups which severed themselves from the catholic orthodox church and follow the same form but have a differing understanding of the Trinity another words they were anathemized or broke away before or during the first two councils). The canons also allow the reception of a heterodox by a confession of faith and denunciation of heresies and their heresiarchs only for nestorians and monophysites (for they follow the same form accept the creed and understand it the same way as we).
Using examples within Church History where economia has been used for the reception of protestants and RC which have deviated from triple immersion should not be considered as setting a precedent nor should it be considered the "norm".

We must also make it clear that we do not recognize sacraments outside the Church, only upon reception into the Church, does a heterodox's empty ritual become full, It is the Orthodox Church herself that takes an invalid empty heterodox sacrament and makes it Her own and completes it. This needs to be made clear.

[Andreas Moran]

After long reflection, I have come to the view that a convert, from wherever, to the Orthodox Church should be baptised.

[James Blackstock]

After long reflection, I have come to the view that a convert, from wherever, to the Orthodox Church should be baptised.

I totally agree! Historically, it seems that whenever our church used economia, we were trying not to trouble the waters with Rome, for various reasons. Agrivia has always been the norm. It seems to me if we recognize the RC baptism, then we should recognize the rest of their sacraments too! Heritical means heritical, or why bother using language at all? I believe that Sacraments are valid only "inside" of The Holy Orthodox Church. (obedience is better than sacrafice!)

[Herman Blaydoe]

I'm not sure I can get onboard with this. Acriva has NOT ALWAYS been the "norm". You might want to spend some time reading the actual history of the Church. "Norm" is hard to define given actual historical precedent. Orthodoxy does not "recognize" heterodox baptism, it "corrects" it by the power of the Holy Spirit through Chrismation, which "provides that which was lacking".

I don't think "valid" is a valid Orthodox theological term.

[James Blackstock]

I'm not sure I can get onboard with this. Acriva has NOT ALWAYS been the "norm". You might want to spend some time reading the actual history of the Church. "Norm" is hard to define given actual historical precedent. Orthodoxy does not "recognize" heterodox baptism, it "corrects" it by the power of the Holy Spirit through Chrismation, which "provides that which was lacking".

I don't think "valid" is a valid Orthodox theological term.


Quotes:

"...One who has not been cannocially baptized and regenerated cannot become a participant in Christ by mere chrismation, since man's regeneration is not accomplished through christmation, but through baptizm."
Neophytos Kafsokalyvitis

"...they who convert from the Latins must indisputably, indispensably, and necessarily be baptized"
Athanasios Parios

"...their baptism belies it's name...neither according to the principle of acrivia nor according to that of economia is it acceptable."
St. Nikodemos of The Holy Mountain

"...the Latin aspersion, being destitute of the immersions and emersions, is consequently also destitute of the image of The Lord's three-day death and burial and resurrection...and destitute of all grace, and sanctification, and remission of sins"
Constantine Oikonomos

The above is consistant with the principles set down by Sts. Cyprian and Basil the Great, who are on the side of acrivia. They do not deny the possible use of economia, but in the spirit of the Second Ecumenical Council and in accordance with the Apostolic form.

[PLEASE SEE CANNON VII OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL-CONSTANTINOPLE, 381AD]

This is a very old problem in the church that came up in the middle of the eighteenth century under the see of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. during the reign of Cyril V

St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain went on to say after the council " with economia passed, the Apostolic Cannons should resume their place"

If you like I can quote from the Holy cannons that deal with baptism
(Cannons of the Holy Apostles-as recorded by Clement)

InXC.
James

[Herman Blaydoe]

And yet, we honor the Great Martyr Elizabeth of Russia, received from the Lutherans by chrismation...

One must be very careful when quoting from the holy "cannons" because it is very easy to end up shooting oneself in the foot. It is "Canon" by the way, not cannon. A canon is used to guide people, a cannon is used to destroy people.

[James Blackstock]

And yet, we honor the Great Martyr Elizabeth of Russia, received from the Lutherans by chrismation.... Quoted from Herman

Yes Herman, this one of those situations where economia was applied! I also acknowledge that many converts to Orthodoxy are merely crismated and not baptized. I do not deny the possible use of economia, but only in the spirit Second (and Penthekte) Ecumenical Council, this is done when it does not vitally harm the church, in other words , when the irrevocable stipulation set by these Ecumenical Councils is fulfilled: namely, that the sacrament of baptism has been administered in accordance with the Apostolic form The use of economia, having a provisional and local character, does not do away with acrivia which constitutes the church's canonical order

I would be nice to think that we all do everything in obedience to Christ and the Apostles, but sometimes we don't! If one is to error, I think I would rather do it on the side of caution and need I say Holy Tradition.

Thanks for the spelling lesson. You really ought to read more on this issue however. Maybe you could still learn something....

InXC,
James

[Herman Blaydoe]

Obedience is certainly a key thing here. I think that is why we have bishops so that we don't have to rely solely on our individual interpretations of "error".

The day we stop learning is the day we die.

Herman

[James Blackstock]

.....so bishops are never wrong? In addition to issues on baptism, I recommend you read church history as well.

[Kosta]

And yet, we honor the Great Martyr Elizabeth of Russia, received from the Lutherans by chrismation.... Quoted from Herman

Yes Herman, this one of those situations where economia was applied! I also acknowledge that many converts to Orthodoxy are merely crismated and not baptized. I do not deny the possible use of economia, but only in the spirit Second (and Penthekte) Ecumenical Council, this is done when it does not vitally harm the church, in other words , when the irrevocable stipulation set by these Ecumenical Councils is fulfilled: namely, that the sacrament of baptism has been administered in accordance with the Apostolic form The use of economia, having a provisional and local character, does not do away with acrivia which constitutes the church's canonical order

I would be nice to think that we all do everything in obedience to Christ and the Apostles, but sometimes we don't! If one is to error, I think I would rather do it on the side of caution and need I say Holy Tradition.

Thanks for the spelling lesson. You really ought to read more on this issue however. Maybe you could still learn something....

InXC,
James

I agree with James here. The use of eikonomia in baptism of protestants is stretched very thin. Originally the canonical order is that reception thru chrismation only was/is limited to people who originated from schismatic groups. Another words they were at one time a part of the catholic Orthodox church but were cut off yet still used the proper form, never to groups which sprang up out of nowhere (protestants)

I have come across many Orthodox converts, some who have or are seeking to now leave Orthodoxy in unusual circumstances bordering on strange, i wonder if this could have been avoided if they were baptised with exactitude. With the prayers of excorcism and triple immersion by a grace-filled priest.

[Olga]

I have come across many Orthodox converts, some who have or are seeking to now leave Orthodoxy in unusual circumstances bordering on strange, i wonder if this could have been avoided if they were baptised with exactitude. With the prayers of excorcism and triple immersion by a grace-filled priest.

Dare I say, Kosta, probably not. There are plenty of examples from past and recent history of "cradle" Orthodox who had been baptised "with exactitude", yet have chosen to apostasise.

Also thank you, Herman, for your observation on St Elizabeth the New Martyr and her mode of reception into the Church. Well done!

[Herman Blaydoe]

so bishops are never wrong? In addition to issues on baptism, I recommend you read church history as well.

Of course bishops are sometimes "wrong", but we do not require our bishops or even our saints to be infallible. However, I fear the influences of Protestantism more than those who fear "wrong" bishops. If we place our own judgement over the judgement of our bishops, we run the risk of becoming exactly what we fear: Protestants. We are not Protestants, we are not Donatists. Our bishops don't have to be always right, but they are still always the bishop, unless they clearly step outside the boundaries of the Faith. And even then, it is up to a court of bishops to first decide what is to be done, not necessarily his own flock. This is one aspect of Tradition that has varied over the years. Saints have had "irregular" baptisms and some serious apostates had technically "perfect" baptisms. Baptism is necessary, but it is not magic. The Holy Spirit provides what is lacking.

We are not ritualists. We are not Protestants. Let us not bring their mistakes into our house. Obedience begins at "home".

[Anthony]

After long reflection, I have come to the view that a convert, from wherever, to the Orthodox Church should be baptised.

And what should happen to those who haven't?

[Andreas Moran]

One thing I had in mind was that as the C of E propels itself ever farther from the Apostolic Church, what sort of baptism can it be if, say, it is one performed by a woman who doesn't believe in the communion of saints and may not even accept all we accept about Christ, His birth and His Resurrection? Is an Anglican baptism peformed today just as valid in our eyes as the one I had in 1947? BTW Metropolitan Kallistos was Chrismated. Also, when I saw my late first wife's Baptism (she had been baptised in the Methodist Church and so could have been Chrismated), I had no doubt that this was preferable.

[James Blackstock]

Dear Herman:

After some reflection on this mini-discussion with you I have concluded that we will probably never agree on this issue. I am afraid I see something much more ominous in this whole issue than you. I see a deliberate departure from Holy Tradition. Wether out of ignorance, prelest, ecumenism or worse, I cannot say! Let me share with you a recent dialogue that took place in my church. We were discussing church greek in a discussion of church history when it became apparent that the "greek speaking" members of our church did not understand the church greek, while fluent in modern greek. The direction of the discussion turned to why don't we simply do it all in English so everyone will understand. One prominent and long time member of our church took the floor and shared a revealing revelation with the group. This individual explained why the original greek was so important for us and in so doing shared that in her practice of Yoga she has gained new insight into the understanding of our Liturgy and church language. Without going into a long history of "this Hindu practice" let me say that I don't think this practice belongs in an Orthodox Church. At the same time, a book was introduced to the group by the moderator and another church member who had attended a lecture that was given by 3 women who were the authors of the presented book. The women started a movement in our city, ostensibly to engender religious tolerance amoung the different faiths. One woman was a Catholic, one a Moslem and the other a Jew. It is apparently full of love, tolerance and a desire for unity in the major aspects of these faiths. All were encouraged to get the book and read it. There was a priest present at this discussion who made no comments, other than to nod his head. Herman, I am all for love, tolerance and understanding. I even respect a persons right to practice Hinduism, but I don't wish to compromise my faith in the name of unity and tolerance and love. It also goes without saying that there has been a movement underway for many years to abolish the differences within the christian community and to bring about a "new" understanding of our faith through the WCC and other well known groups. Our own Patriarche has reached out to the Pope in an effort to heal the schism between us. He is a very controversial person and many within the church hold him up in concern and prayer. Many current and well known priests and theologians have written many works on the positive aspect of ecumenism. Frankly, this all scares the hell out of me! Many parts of our liturgy have all but dissappeared in the name of economia. It is a significant fact that the monks on Mt, Athos are concerned about these same issues. It is very interesting to me that, in the main, they are judged as being "old fashioned" and simply don't understand the issues. I don't pretend to understand all that is happening in the church, but my own prayer life has become more intense. We live in interesting times. I believe they are the "last" times and we should all be "watching" for the Lord's return. I will end this by sharing just a couple of verses from Scripture;

"....when He returns, will He find "any" of Faith?"
"....have we not cast out devils in thy name?...depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you." (iniquity in the greek has the meaning of doing your own thing or "wrong" doing)

I do know (because I read the end of the book!) that in the last days there is going to be a one world religion who will worship the Anti-christ. How can this possibly happen? will the Orthodox Church change so much that in just becomes homogenized? I don't know, but I am watching!

InXC,James

[Herman Blaydoe]

I hear what you are saying James. I do think it sad that we are basically keeping the teachings and prayers of the Church from our people by hiding them in "holy" language. However, I think "fear" and being "scared" are not appropriate for us, "for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 1:7)

We are all called to be stewards and custodians of the treasure that is the Apostolic Witness, and being well-educated in the teachings of the Church is part of that, as long as it is accompanied by praxis. But the life and ministry of a prophet is not easy. Keep your concern and your zealousless, but lose the fear. God IS in control. He has guided the Church through the rocks of many heresies and times of change down through the millenia. Like Peter walking on the stormy sea, keep your eyes on Christ and dread nought!

Or so it seems to this simple mind. YMMV.

[Andreas Moran]

And what should happen to those who haven't? from Anthony

I asked about this, and was told (by one bishop and two archimandrites), 'once you're in, you're in'. Nobody has ever suggested I'm a second-class Orthodox. What I said was aimed at those not yet in, having regard to what has happened to the C of E and Protestant churches in recent times.

[James Blackstock]

Thanks Herman! when I used the word scared, I did not mean that I was literally afraid, it was Hyperbole! I think you yourself have used this device here.

By the way, John Moschos tells of a convert who was baptized with "sand" (this is economia!) He later ran to the Bishop and asked if it was valid. The bishop, who observed the dramatic change in his life, said that it was ok!

This and all other instances of economia should not be the preferred Praxis in the church.

InXC,
James

[Andreas Moran]

I agree, James. And why wouldn't a prospective convert want to be baptised?

[James Blackstock]

Because they are not always given a choice! nor do they understand the ramifications. They go along with the flow, like most of us do!

[Anthony]

Thank you, Andreas, for the clarification. I asked because I came across different views of the matter among some people in Greece.

I have some sympathy with the view that baptism should be the normal way of receiving converts (though I can also see the other point of view); but I have problems with the idea that those who have been received in other ways, and participated in the mysteries, should (or could) subsequently be baptized.

Anthony

[Michael Stickles]

And why wouldn't a prospective convert want to be baptised?

A convert who had previously been baptized in a non-Orthodox church, using another form, but who is convinced through his/her experience that the grace and Spirit of God were at work through that baptism, might resist being "rebaptized" because it could be seen as implying that the previous baptism was "meaningless", in direct contradiction of personal experience.

This isn't purely theoretical; until recently, that was my personal view. And I still believe my adult baptism nearly 30 years ago was "effective" in a very real way, even though not Orthodox, nor done in an Orthodox mode (it was only a single immersion, in both the name of Jesus and in the name of the Trinity, and I was the only one there who had anything vaguely resembling a sacramental view of it). I specify "adult" because I was also baptized as an infant in a Roman Catholic church (or so I'm told; I don't remember it myself).

My current view, though, is to simply trust in the decision of our parish priest when that time comes (probably next fall). If he counsels baptism, I get baptized (hey, then I'd have the trifecta - Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox baptisms!). If he decides to do just chrismation, that's fine too. It's certainly not my place to instruct a priest as to how I (or anyone else) should be received into the Church.

In Christ,
Mike

[Rick H.]

It's certainly not my place to instruct a priest as to how I (or anyone else) should be received into the Church.

In Christ,
Mike




I think this is the bottom line here Mike, just as you have said. Now, looking back, I think I wish I would have been baptized in the EO Church; but, it is as you say.

Although, and not to get this thread off track, now I do find myself wondering why this sacrament is considered acceptable outside the EO church and others are not--seems a little inconsistent.

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, actually, we don't "accept" the sacrament, we fulfil the form. The Holy Spirit provides what was lacking through Chrismation, sort of retroactively making the baptism an Orthodox one, since God is outside time, it is not such a big deal for Him, yes?

Beyond that, how could any sacrament (or lack thereof in the nonsacramental Protestant denominations) be "accepted" outside of the Church, since it is only within the Church they have any meaning to begin with?

[Rick H.]

Is this kind of like Herman's hermenuetics from awhile back, or is this really it?




Well, actually, we don't "accept" the sacrament, we fulfil the form. The Holy Spirit provides what was lacking through Chrismation, sort of retroactively making the baptism an Orthodox one, since God is outside time, it is not such a big deal for Him, yes?



Because, it seems that if we move outside of time, and speak of fulfilling forms retroactively, then the same should hold true for the Lords Supper. There are different schools of thought on the Lord's supper in Protestantism, just are there are in EO (as evidenced very clearly by the Body and Blood thread on this site). If the Holy Spirit provides what is lacking for baptism outside the E.O. Church, then it seems consistent to say the same for other sacraments, no?

Once we move to a position where the Holy Spirit provides what is lacking outside of the EO, and once we move outside of time/fulfilling forms retroactively we move into a very interesting area. And, now I am thinking of a book titled, "Christ, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper: Recovering the sacraments for evangelical worship," by Lenoard J. Vander Zee. Ever read this one sir? This one might be an eye opener, or again it might not as it relates to a school of thought in evangelicalism anyway. And, while we are on books here, I wonder if any have seen Alister McGrath's new release, "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First." I had this one in my hands the other night at the book store, but they wanted too much for it. These Protestants are really moving in an interesting direction with their thinking, to say the least.

But, possibly in another thread Herman, I will compare and contrast what you have said to some of the more current thinking found in non--EO Christianity, and we may have a very interesting thread on our hands based on your above comments.

There has been some discussion of Bradley Nassif in the other thread lately, but as it relates to his article in Christianity Today , last spring, we may find him to be somewhat of a prophet based on my current reading as we move further into the 21st Century.

In Christ,
Rick

[James Blackstock]

Because, it seems that if we move outside of time, and speak of fulfilling forms retroactively, then the same should hold true for the Lords Supper. There are different schools of thought on the Lord's supper in Protestantism, just are there are in EO (as evidenced very clearly by the Body and Blood thread on this site). If the Holy Spirit provides what is lacking for baptism outside the E.O. Church, then it seems consistent to say the same for other sacraments, no?
Rick

Dear Rick:

Your logic is impeccable! That was the very point I was making! If one of their sacraments are efficacious, then all of them are! (or none of them) We might as well just give into ecumenism.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Actually no. Heterodox baptism is not a sacrament until it is made so by Orthodox Chrismation. The Eucharist in the Orthodox Church does not "validate" or "correct" communion in non-Orthodox Churches, how can it, if they are not part of the Orthodox communion?

I guess I am really NOT following your reasoning here.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Mike,

It would be nice if the priest were to consult you and give you a choice rather than deciding for you.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Why? We are not a "have it your way" kind of church. Obedience can be a good thing, don't you think? Either way has its points. But I am certainly content to leave that to be between the catechumen and his priest.

[Rick H.]

Heterodox baptism is not a sacrament until it is made so by Orthodox Chrismation.


The Eucharist in the Orthodox Church does not "validate" or "correct" communion in non-Orthodox Churches, how can it, if they are not part of the Orthodox communion?





Although, I do not think the introduction of the words "validate" or "correct" are especially helpful at the present, again, the situation, what you have outlined is kind of the point here Herman. But, luckily for me, I have just signed up with the same internet posting temp service that Father Raphael works from, and my contract has just expired on this thread.

Peace,
Rick

PS James, thanks for the encouraging words, I should put that post on my refridgerator ;)

[Andreas Moran]

Why? We are not a "have it your way" kind of church. Obedience can be a good thing, don't you think? Either way has its points. But I am certainly content to leave that to be between the catechumen and his priest.

I can't be the only one who, for whatever reason, would, with hindsight, have opted for baptism, though I have no doubt that I am Orthodox. People with whom I have disussed this also take the view that an Anglican/Protestant baptism done in recent years can't amount to much. I think the priest should discuss the issue with a catechumen - doing so does not imply a 'have it your way' kind of church but would indicate a sensitive pastoral concern that the catechumen was going forward in an informed way. What do the priests here think?

[Kris]

I can't be the only one who, for whatever reason, would, with hindsight, have opted for baptism, though I have no doubt that I am Orthodox. People with whom I have disussed this also take the view that an Anglican/Protestant baptism done in recent years can't amount to much. I think the priest should discuss the issue with a catechumen - doing so does not imply a 'have it your way' kind of church but would indicate a sensitive pastoral concern that the catechumen was going forward in an informed way. What do the priests here think?

I too wish I had been received into the Church by baptism. I raised the issue with my spiritual Father (who tends to be very conservative on most matters) who in turn discussed it with the Bishop. The reply I got was pretty much that it was not permissable for a priest under the Ecumenical Patriarchate to baptise anyone that had received a Trinitarean 'baptism,' regardless of who had performed it.

I am perfectly open to the notion of economia in certain instances, and I can understand how the Church can infuse a valid form with sacramental grace. What I cannot understand is how baptism can be denied to those who have received a 'correct form' - this would only make sense if it constituted a second baptism, but that is clearly not the case if the first one was not (as everyone here seems to agree) a sacrament.

If, God willing, any of my friends or family that had (what I would regard now as) the misfortune of being baptised in a heretical church chose to become Orthodox, I would direct them to the ROCOR, Jerusalem or Serbian Patriarchates rather than to the EP or other churches with this policy.

[Kosta]

I too wish I had been received into the Church by baptism. I raised the issue with my spiritual Father (who tends to be very conservative on most matters) who in turn discussed it with the Bishop. The reply I got was pretty much that it was not permissable for a priest under the Ecumenical Patriarchate to baptise anyone that had received a Trinitarean 'baptism,' regardless of who had performed it.

I am perfectly open to the notion of economia in certain instances, and I can understand how the Church can infuse a valid form with sacramental grace. What I cannot understand is how baptism can be denied to those who have received a 'correct form' - this would only make sense if it constituted a second baptism, but that is clearly not the case if the first one was not (as everyone here seems to agree) a sacrament.

If, God willing, any of my friends or family that had (what I would regard now as) the misfortune of being baptised in a heretical church chose to become Orthodox, I would direct them to the ROCOR, Jerusalem or Serbian Patriarchates rather than to the EP or other churches with this policy.


I am A cradle Greek Orthodox, my entire life in a jurisidiction under the E.P. I commend you, that you would direct them to the Churches without this policy. In fact it maybe time i started seeking a jurisdiciton outside the E.P.

Such a policy goes beyond the issue of eikonomia in baptism. It means a diocean bishop under the EP is simply a puppet of the ecumenical Patriarch. Bishops are equal and are to have autonomy in their diocese. If this policy is accurate (which i assume it is since ive heard rumors of this elsewhere), then bishops under the EP are nothing but puppets carrying out the neo-papism of "big brother" the E.P.

[Andreas Moran]

The reply I got was pretty much that it was not permissable for a priest under the Ecumenical Patriarchate to baptise anyone that had received a Trinitarean 'baptism,' regardless of who had performed it.

I was actually given the choice, and that was in the EP, so can't be a blanket policy, but if such a policy is widespread, then I sympathise with Kosta. (My late first wife was baptised in Cyprus. We then had an Orthodox church wedding to complete our Orthodoxy.) As I said in my post under the 'Patriarchate of Constantinople' thread, EP has to tread very carefully and not upset the western establishment which, in England, associates itself with the C of E.

There is no doubt that a catechumen who is chrismated becomes Orthodox and receives grace. But I have seen that one who is baptised receives greater grace, and I would urge any catechumen to opt for baptism.

[James Blackstock]

We then had an Orthodox church wedding to complete our Orthodoxy.)


Forgive me for asking, had you previously been married in a civil ceremony?

[Andreas Moran]

My late first wife and I had been married in a Methodist church. We were advised that a couple are not married in the eyes of the Orthodox Church unless they have an Orthodox marriage.

[James Blackstock]

Thanks Andreas for sharing. This gets back to previous discussion in this thread. Personally, I think it is beautiful that you were married in the Orthodox Church and I also believe that you have received Grace in that Mysterion that was not there before.

[Andreas Moran]

Well, my wife went through the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, Holy Communion, and matrimony all in the space of two weeks, so you could expect grace to abound. And, that grace stayed with her from that time until her repose exactly three years later.

[James Blackstock]

Well, my wife went through the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, Holy Communion, and matrimony all in the space of two weeks, so you could expect grace to abound. And, that grace stayed with her from that time until her repose exactly three years later.

I waited and prayed alittle before I responded to this, as what you have shared does not track with the normal praxis of todays church in America. I think what you and you wife did in obedience to your hearts and I am also sure to your spiritual father, was absoultely beautiful. It shows true obedience to the Traditions of our church but more than that, it shows that you stepped out in your faith and practiced what you believe. I am really proud to call both you and your Godly wife my brother and sister in Christ. May her memory be eternal!

InXC,
James

[Father David Moser]

what you have shared does not track with the normal praxis of todays church in America.

Actually, what Andreas described is exactly the practice of the more traditional Orthodox Churches in America. I can affirm that within the Russian Church in the diaspora this is the normal, preferred practice. (And it was the practice in the OCA parish in which my wife and I were originally received by baptism and chrismation and our marriage crowned "in the same hour"). The only time a marriage is not crowned in the Church is when only one spouse converts and then the ruling of the Apostle Paul is invoked suggesting that the believing spouse remain in the marriage if their partner is willing, so that through them the other might be saved.

I notice, James, that you are in the GOA, and therefore the practice may be different.

Fr David Moser

[James Blackstock]

Dear Fr David:

I wish what you said was true! My wife and I were recieved into the OCA by a priest from Russian decent. We were chrismated. No baptism or marriage ! At the time, I din't know the difference, We were not given any options. I am investigating those options now.

[Father David Moser]

Dear Fr David:

I wish what you said was true! My wife and I were recieved into the OCA by a priest from Russian decent. We were chrismated. No baptism or marriage ! At the time, I din't know the difference, We were not given any options. I am investigating those options now.

While it is generally not considered proper to give a "retroactive" baptism, I know of no reason why you could not be given a Church marriage.

Fr David Moser

[James Blackstock]

By God's Grace all will be done according to His will!

[Andreas Moran]

Thank you, James, for your kind comments about my late first wife. For anyone who might come to be in that situation, it should be noted that the sacrament of marriage should be performed after some interval from the baptism and chrismation. After baptism and chrismation, there has to be the ablution which ought to be on the eighth day after the chrismation but at least three days after. In Katerina's case (her name was Kathryn and inevitably it became 'Katerina'), the baptism and chrismation took place one day, she received Holy Communion on the third day thereafter, fasting during those three days, and the sacrament of marriage took place just over a week later. The ablution involves a washing of the holy oil from the body; the water is drained into the earth (as her baptismal water had been), and the towel, being covered in holy oil, kept. The baptismal robe (a simple white shift with red crosses on the breast, back, arms and two on the hem above the feet), having on it holy oil from the baptismal vessel, is likewise kept. (In the event, she was buried in her baptismal robe with the towel of the ablution placed under her in the coffin.)

PS I should have mentioned that Confession is made before Baptism and/or Chrismation.