Baptising after chrismation - essential for complete katharsis?

[Alec Lowly]

I've been told, informally, that one of the reasons some Old Calendar jurisdictions insist upon the "rebaptism" of Orthodox who have bee received by chrismation -- even those long in the Church, who have been partaking of the Holy Gifts -- is that certain sins and/or passions cannot be extirpated without Orthodox baptism. Has anybody else encountered this teaching? What would these sins and/or passions be? Is this a genuine teaching, whether true or false, or is this folklore? How do proponents of this view answer the objection that what they are saying, in sum, is that chrismation fails to supply what is lacking and that faithful reception of the Holy Gifts is insufficient for the remission of sin?

[John W.]

I've been told, informally, that one of the reasons some Old Calendar jurisdictions insist upon the "rebaptism" of Orthodox who have bee received by chrismation -- even those long in the Church, who have been partaking of the Holy Gifts -- is that certain sins and/or passions cannot be extirpated without Orthodox baptism. Has anybody else encountered this teaching? What would these sins and/or passions be? Is this a genuine teaching, whether true or false, or is this folklore? How do proponents of this view answer the objection that what they are saying, in sum, is that chrismation fails to supply what is lacking and that faithful reception of the Holy Gifts is insufficient for the remission of sin?

"In 1755, Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople issued a controversial Definition of the Holy Church of Christ Defending the Holy Baptism Given from God, and Spitting upon the Baptisms of the Heretics Which Are Otherwise Administered, which was signed also by the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem. From that time onward, the Greek Church in principle required (re)baptism of all Latin converts (and for that matter of Uniate and non-Chalcedonian converts as well). Writers favouring the new practice (e.g., St. Nikodemos the Haghiorite in his commentaries on the Pedalion), faced with the problem of explaining the earlier (and the continuing Russian) practice of non-rebaptism, did so in terms of oikonomia. From the mid-19th century in the Church of Constantinople, and from the early 20th century in the Church of Greece, reception by anointing with chrism again begins to be permitted, at first only very grudgingly, this being explained simply as a matter of oikonomia. Inasmuch as the 1755 Definition on heretic baptism has never been rescinded, recourse to akribeia (i.e., rebaptism) remains a possibility in the Greek Orthodox world and is often advocated especially in circles influenced by the example of Mount Athos."

Professor (now Father) John Erickson, in The Ecumenical Review, Jan-April 2002

[Andrew]

"In 1755, Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople issued a controversial Definition of the Holy Church of Christ Defending the Holy Baptism Given from God, and Spitting upon the Baptisms of the Heretics Which Are Otherwise Administered, which was signed also by the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem. From that time onward, the Greek Church in principle required (re)baptism of all Latin converts (and for that matter of Uniate and non-Chalcedonian converts as well). Writers favouring the new practice (e.g., St. Nikodemos the Haghiorite in his commentaries on the Pedalion), faced with the problem of explaining the earlier (and the continuing Russian) practice of non-rebaptism, did so in terms of oikonomia. From the mid-19th century in the Church of Constantinople, and from the early 20th century in the Church of Greece, reception by anointing with chrism again begins to be permitted, at first only very grudgingly, this being explained simply as a matter of oikonomia. Inasmuch as the 1755 Definition on heretic baptism has never been rescinded, recourse to akribeia (i.e., rebaptism) remains a possibility in the Greek Orthodox world and is often advocated especially in circles influenced by the example of Mount Athos."

Professor (now Father) John Erickson, in The Ecumenical Review, Jan-April 2002

I think Alec is referring to retroactive baptism of chrismated Orthodox people, not the reception of heterodox through baptism. For example, a chrismated man goes to the Holy Mountain and the fathers of a zealot skete have him baptized... that is what he was referring to, I think.

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is no such thing as "rebaptism", or the Creed we all say is false.

I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins...

A "rebaptism" would be more than one, yes? The question is whether or not a non-Orthodox baptism can become an Orthodox one. Given the examples of the Good Thief and many saints of the Church (like St. Elizabeth the New Martyr) who did not have the opportunity to receive an "Orthodox" baptism, I think the answer has to be YES.

So we either retroactively fulfil the baptismal act received previously, or we baptize regardless of what happened previously. In either case there is only ONE BAPTISM.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I've been told, informally, that one of the reasons some Old Calendar jurisdictions insist upon the "rebaptism" of Orthodox who have bee received by chrismation -- even those long in the Church, who have been partaking of the Holy Gifts -- is that certain sins and/or passions cannot be extirpated without Orthodox baptism. Has anybody else encountered this teaching? What would these sins and/or passions be? Is this a genuine teaching, whether true or false, or is this folklore? How do proponents of this view answer the objection that what they are saying, in sum, is that chrismation fails to supply what is lacking and that faithful reception of the Holy Gifts is insufficient for the remission of sin?

I haven't personally heard such a categorical connection made between the lessening of passions and baptism- ie that without baptism they cannot be extirpated. But in a general sense we still need to keep in mind that in Patristic/ascetic understanding there is a connection made between Baptism and the death of the Old Man which of course includes sin.

Although we must be very careful of trying to use Baptism as a clinical technique to attack specific passions (this I saw used in this way once in an effort I thought very harmful) we still though need to take into account I think that many who have been Baptized genuinely sense themselves as spiritually different & made new. This though does not mean the passions disappear; rather it means the Old Man is now in a quite different relation to the New which now hopefully is foremost. Just as many priests can tell you that the grace of the priesthood has a tangible aspect to it so this does not mean that priests at ordination become sinless.

About chrismation being sufficient or not. Again we must be careful in how we understand this. Just because it is indicated that Baptism is needed does not mean that chrismation is seen as being insufficient. Rather Baptism and chrismation simply complement each other when it is deemed that this is the proper way to receive particular people.

After all, during the normal Baptism service, chrismation normally follows immediately after. We wouldn't challenge this by saying that since chrismation is anointing by the Holy Spirit we are thus in no need of Baptism; nor is it really correct to say that the reason we Baptize is because the chrismation is insufficient. Rather in this situation where the person is deemed to need entry into the Church in this particular way Baptism & chrismation complement each other.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father Serafim]

It is our practice to correct baptism not re-baptize. For example a couple came to me, 10 years ago saying that they had been baptized by mass sprinking in a service in which they hardly got wet, if at all. They were standing at the back of the vast crowd. This is a bizarre example, but I believe corrective NOT rebaptism is in order here.

[Alec Lowly]

There is no such thing as "rebaptism", or the Creed we all say is false.

I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins...

A "rebaptism" would be more than one, yes? The question is whether or not a non-Orthodox baptism can become an Orthodox one. Given the examples of the Good Thief and many saints of the Church (like St. Elizabeth the New Martyr) who did not have the opportunity to receive an "Orthodox" baptism, I think the answer has to be YES.

So we either retroactively fulfil the baptismal act received previously, or we baptize regardless of what happened previously. In either case there is only ONE BAPTISM.

The fact that I set off the word "rebaptism" by quotes is an indication ab initio that the term is dodgy ... no one, Herman, is questioning the creedal statement ...

[Alec Lowly]

I think Alec is referring to retroactive baptism of chrismated Orthodox people, not the reception of heterodox through baptism. For example, a chrismated man goes to the Holy Mountain and the fathers of a zealot skete have him baptized... that is what he was referring to, I think.

Yes, that is ~exactly~ what I'm referring to, except that the chrismated Orthodox has been in the Church nearly 30 years, and the "rebaptism" took place in Arizona USA ...

[Andrew]

This might help a bit...

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/tikhon_response.aspx

[Olga]

Might I add my ten cents' worth: here in Australia, there has been a separation in the Greek Orthodox church for decades, not along doctrinal lines, but "political" ones, a bit like the separation of the MP and ROCOR. Many Greek emigrants were married in these "Greek Orthodox Community" churches, and their children were baptised in them, in often complete ignorance of the fact that the mother church of Greece did not recognise the "canonicity" of these sacraments.

It was only in late 1985 that the Greek parliament gave full legal recognition to civil and non-Orthodox weddings (to the consternation of the church hierarchy). However, prior to this date, the anomaly of separated arms of the Greek churches meant that a couple married in one of these "unrecognised" churches would not be considered married under Greek law, which led to all sorts of legal tangles, including the deeming of any children as illegitimate, unless the necessary administrative corrections were made. Similarly, children baptised in these churches were deemed to not have had a proper Orthodox baptism. How were such baptisms "restored"? By chrismation, never by full baptism.

By contrast, despite the separation of MP and ROCOR, I have yet to come across a single instance in the Russian community where I live where someone who has received baptism in an MP church has had to be chrismated or "rebaptised" on joining the local ROCOR church.

[Alec Lowly]

This might help a bit...

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/tikhon_response.aspx


Thanks, Andrew, I'm already familiar with it, it's no help at all ...

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Alec, you wrote:


I've been told, informally, that one of the reasons some Old Calendar jurisdictions insist upon the "rebaptism" of Orthodox who have bee received by chrismation -- even those long in the Church, who have been partaking of the Holy Gifts -- is that certain sins and/or passions cannot be extirpated without Orthodox baptism. Has anybody else encountered this teaching? What would these sins and/or passions be? Is this a genuine teaching, whether true or false, or is this folklore? How do proponents of this view answer the objection that what they are saying, in sum, is that chrismation fails to supply what is lacking and that faithful reception of the Holy Gifts is insufficient for the remission of sin?

To answer this directly: no, I can think of no specific ecclesiastical text that states that there are specific passions left un-touched by baptism performed in another tradition, which chrismation is not sufficient to correct.

Of course, it has to be said that this is in large part because ecclesiastical texts don't generally deal with the specifics of what does or does not happen in sacramental acts of other bodies. The idea that there would be specific passions catalogued as 'unaffected' by heterodox baptism, while other passions are catalogues as 'affected', goes utterly beyond the purview of ecclesiastical texts of Orthodox origin.

What some ecclesiastical writings do discuss (those that some would call 'hard line') is the possibility that sacramental action may not be known to exist outside the Church; and therefore the only way to effect sacramental union with the Church on entry is to engage in baptism. But by this approach, it cannot be said that 'some passions are touched on out there; others only in here' -- this would go against the very logic of the position.

It sounds like what you've encountered is a bit of folklore. I have often spoken with those of 'hard line' monasteries and communities -- i.e. that would insist on baptism of all converts on specific grounds that all other baptisms are fundamentally invalid -- but have never heard this position argued.

As to the habit of insisting on baptism of persons who have been received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation and have been communing faithful for years (quite different from the practice of baptising all converts on reception into the Church): there are some groups who subscribe to this practice. I asked about it during a recent period of time on Athos, and was told quite summarily: 'that is simply demonic'.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Moses Ibrahim]

St. Martin of Tours (pre-schism western Saint 8th century) brought arians (the Visigoths mainly) into the Church by Chrismation only and justified himself by saying that the arians if told they should be baptized again will refuse entering into the Orthodox Church and out of extreme economy he allowed such a thing to take place. It would be great if a person wants to be re-baptized from another so called "trinitarian christian sect" especially when triple immersion wasn't done. However for those who refuse I guess its up to the bishop to make the ultimate decision. Hopefully it will be a good one by God's grace.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Can we please delete the word "rebaptized" from our lexicon?

There is no such thing. Either a previous heterodox baptismal form is retroactively made fully Orthodox through Chrismation or a person who previously received a heterodox "baptism" receives an Orthodox baptism. Either method of reception is acceptable, based on circumstance and pastoral judgement.

There is ONE Baptism, there is no "re-baptism". And "valid" is not a valid Orthodox term!

[Nina]

If a monk does the correction of the baptism, he does it out of love. We can not judge them because we do not know what they know. I was emailed some pictures with an angel standing by the person baptized and no angel by the person who was chrismated. I do not know what that means since I do not even know my heart. But God Who is Omniscient and Who loves us and has a great mercy on us will provide.

We must not judge those monks (not that someone is judging here but it may be a temptation) since we know from the lives of the Fathers that they were so unconventional with unconventional stories.

[Andreas Moran]

Metropolitan Kallistos seems to have managed well enough on just Chrismation but as I've said before elsewhere I'd opt for baptism.

[Eric Peterson]

This question, of whether or not to "regularize" or "correct" a reception into the Church or baptize those received into the Church through Chrismation alone is a very difficult question to answer, arguably beyond anyone but someone with a great gift of discernment from God. Such people I would think capable to answer the question, like Elder Daniel of the Holy Mountain, are now with the Lord.

The whole theory of economy behind receiving some converts by Chrismation is, to my knowledge, not explicitly expressed in the authoritative writings of the Church. (Correct me, please.) There is a canon of an ecumenical council regarding how certain fourth century heretics should be received, but this is not universally recognized as an authentic canon of an ecumenical council (see book "I Confess One Baptism") and it does not deal with the situation today.

To my knowledge, the current criteria to receive a convert from a heretical sect by Chrismation alone stipulates that he or she be baptized 1) by triple immersion and 2) in the name of the Holy Trinity. However, the first stipulation is often ignored. Furthermore, there is little groundwork to build this whole idea on.

Corrective baptism, however, has a more solid foundation. However, it does raise serious issues when it is made a requirement before a local church will dispense the sacraments--even though the person has received the sacraments for a long time in another local church. Of course, such squabbles between local churches are very traditional. :)

[James Blackstock]

This question, of whether or not to "regularize" or "correct" a reception into the Church or baptize those received into the Church through Chrismation alone is a very difficult question to answer, arguably beyond anyone but someone with a great gift of discernment from God. Such people I would think capable to answer the question, like Elder Daniel of the Holy Mountain, are now with the Lord.

The whole theory of economy behind receiving some converts by Chrismation is, to my knowledge, not explicitly expressed in the authoritative writings of the Church. (Correct me, please.) There is a canon of an ecumenical council regarding how certain fourth century heretics should be received, but this is not universally recognized as an authentic canon of an ecumenical council (see book "I Confess One Baptism") and it does not deal with the situation today.

To my knowledge, the current criteria to receive a convert from a heretical sect by Chrismation alone stipulates that he or she be baptized 1) by triple immersion and 2) in the name of the Holy Trinity. However, the first stipulation is often ignored. Furthermore, there is little groundwork to build this whole idea on.

Corrective baptism, however, has a more solid foundation. However, it does raise serious issues when it is made a requirement before a local church will dispense the sacraments--even though the person has received the sacraments for a long time in another local church. Of course, such squabbles between local churches are very traditional. :)


I have posted on this subject before and I think made my position very clear. Someone above stated "What does God want?" well, just to put in my 2 cents again, as the devils advocate, what would the devil want us to do? Since we are plainly told in Scripture that Anti-Christ will head up a world wide religion and those people will worship him. Is it possible that all things ecumenical are nothing more than the working out of the mystery of lawlessness? (ecumenism is more about human love than it is about Agape Love, which always tells the truth even if it hurts) That being said, I do believe that if a convert is merely chrismated and has come to the Body of Christ with a pure heart, then even if it turns out that this whole practice is wrong, then the convert himself is not going to be in any trouble with The Lord. But the Heirarchs?.....Luke 17:1-2 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. KJV

I have talked with many priests concerning this issue and the one thing I am sure of is that these priests, who practice economia, are acting in faithful obedience to their Bishops. I also believe that the Church is perfect (not people) I don't pretend to be more holy than any Bishop, for I know that I am the worst of sinners, but we are commanded to "watch" and in watching, some things just don't add up!

Seraphim

[Eric Peterson]

But isn't the main question we're dealing with here baptizing people received through Chrismation?

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think it is very important to realise there are two distinct issues being discussed. One is the practice of receiving all converts by baptism (as opposed to chrismation); the other -- which is the actual focus of this thread -- is the practice of taking those who have already been received into the Orthodox Church via chrismation, and at some later stage (after they have already been communicant members of the Church for some time), baptising them. These are actually quite different issues.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Alec Lowly]

If a monk does the correction of the baptism, he does it out of love. We can not judge them because we do not know what they know. I was emailed some pictures with an angel standing by the person baptized and no angel by the person who was chrismated. I do not know what that means since I do not even know my heart. But God Who is Omniscient and Who loves us and has a great mercy on us will provide.

We must not judge those monks (not that someone is judging here but it may be a temptation) since we know from the lives of the Fathers that they were so unconventional with unconventional stories.

Angels do photo shoots?

[Alec Lowly]

I think it is very important to realise there are two distinct issues being discussed. One is the practice of receiving all converts by baptism (as opposed to chrismation); the other -- which is the actual focus of this thread -- is the practice of taking those who have already been received into the Orthodox Church via chrismation, and at some later stage (after they have already been communicant members of the Church for some time), baptising them. These are actually quite different issues.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Quite so, Deacon Matthew, and thank you ...

[James Blackstock]

I think it is very important to realise there are two distinct issues being discussed. One is the practice of receiving all converts by baptism (as opposed to chrismation); the other -- which is the actual focus of this thread -- is the practice of taking those who have already been received into the Orthodox Church via chrismation, and at some later stage (after they have already been communicant members of the Church for some time), baptising them. These are actually quite different issues.
INXC, Dcn Matthew

I guess I would have to agree that they are two issues, for the purpose of this thread, but my position would be the same on both issues. To me, any baptism, outside of the Orthodox Church is heretical, as all the other heterodox sacraments or ordinances are. If baptism is valid (don't mean to offend anyone who does not like the use of that word), then all of their other sacraments should be as well. As far as I know, the Holy Spirit is not a part of a heterodox sacrament, making it efficacious, unless there is more than one church. I don't think we can pick and choose, whatever our reasons are for doing so. Also, I believe that those received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation only, should be baptized even if it is many years after they've joined the Church. I agree with what was stated earlier, there is a particular and special Grace that comes from Baptism. If one is not Baptized, one does not get that grace. Under the word obedience in the dictionary, I cannot find economia listed as a definition, nor do I find that word used for obedience in the scriptures. Is there really "any" valid reason for using economia (as we do today, certainly, there have been good reasons in the past!) other than we don't want to offend the other churches?

INXC,
Seraphim

[Nina]

Angels do photo shoots?

Yes, like the Dove in Theophany.

[Mary]

I guess I would have to agree that they are two issues, for the purpose of this thread, but my position would be the same on both issues. To me, any baptism, outside of the Orthodox Church is heretical, as all the other heterodox sacraments or ordinances are. If baptism is valid (don't mean to offend anyone who does not like the use of that word), then all of their other sacraments should be as well.
INXC,
Seraphim

That's what I think too. Not that it matters. If Baptisms outside the Orthodox church can be 'valid', then why not all other sacraments? Only God can accept them - because He's merciful and knows all things. How can we know if it's acceptable to Him?

I was baptised under the Trinitarian 'formula', so I could've been received into the Church by Chrismation alone, and I was given the choice. The only reason I could think of, for not wanting to get baptised is, fear of getting wet. I didn't want to miss out on anything the Church has to offer. After all, everything I"d ever known my entire life, had just become as nothing. I felt like I was becoming a Christian for the first time. What did I have of value from the past life that I should bring it with me? I wanted a new beginning, and it was being offered to me, and I took it. I needed it. If allowed, I'd love to be baptised again!

That being said, I have friends who were received by just Christmation. They're not any less Orthodox than I am, and they're much better people than I am. Perhaps they were never as sinful as I am.

I've heard that there are some areas where converts aren't given the choice to get baptised, even if they want to. Not sure where I heard this, so I don't know if it's true or not. If it's true, it's a very sad thing. But I"m not in charge. Thank God!

As for rebaptising those who've been communing for a long time, etc. I'm clueless.

Please forgive me.
In Christ,
Mary.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

As for rebaptising those who've been communing for a long time, etc. I'm clueless.

At least at one time the most common objection was that to baptize after having already been received sacramentally into the Church was to deny what came before. eg if a priest was to be baptized this would in some way amount to a denial of his former priesthood.

From experience however I would say this is not so. Each sacrament is a particular reality of grace which complements the rest of ones life in the Church. It does not deny this reality even if taken out of 'logical order'. At least this is the experience I know of as well as others who have shared a similar experience.

What I think is most wrong however is any teaching which maintains that until one is 'corrected' you are not actually Orthodox.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John W.]

At least at one time the most common objection was that to baptize after having already been received sacramentally into the Church was to deny what came before. eg if a priest was to be baptized this would in some way amount to a denial of his former priesthood.


Archbishop Dmitri (OCA Diocese of the South) expressed his objections this way in an explanatory letter to a priest that he suspended:



"I am writing to you so that you may understand my attitude towards your re-baptism and why I concluded that it was necessary to suspend you. When I first learned from you what you had done, I was perplexed, surprised, and shocked. Yet, because you accepted this baptism at one of the monasteries of Mount Athos, the spiritual center of Orthodoxy, and not from some cleric or monastery of one of the super Orthodox fringe cults, I held back my reaction. But, I immediately began to try to find out why this is being done. I asked His Beatitude to make inquiries; I made many myself, and I studied, praying and asking the Lord's guidance in determining what course of action I was to take. This letter was begun months ago, as my investigation progressed, but now I hasten to complete it, having had the opportunity to discuss the whole matter with the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America.

My first reaction was that it smacked of Pharisaism, in its apparent preoccupation with form and with every detail, leaving nothing to the working of the Holy Spirit, even of "quenching the Holy Spirit." After all, when you were ordained to the holy priesthood, the formula that was recited by the ordaining hierarch was: "The grace divine which always healeth that which is infirm and completeth that which is wanting, elevateth through the laying on of hands, N., the most devour deacon, to be a priest. Wherefore, let us pray for him, that the grace of the all-Holy Spirit may come upon him."

Can this be understood to mean that there are certain "wants" or "lacks" that are beyond the Holy Spirit's power to complete? If we conclude that such an understanding of the Holy Spirit's power is wrong and sinful, is it not then a sin to undergo an act, the application of which implies that the Holy Spirit's power did not extend to cover and validate your first baptism? If you sinned against the Holy Spirit in this act, it would seem that rather than benefit your pursuit of salvation it could only end up by endangering it. Then we must also mention that at your chrismation you were sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

These considerations bring us to the question as to whether you were or were not baptized already when you were baptized on Mt. Athos. If you were, then you submitted to a second baptism or repeated your baptism. If you were not, how are we to consider your chrismation, communions, ordination and subsequent celebrations of the holy mysteries? Can an unbaptized man be validly or properly ordained? It was the same Church that by its rightful exercise of economia decided that you could be received by chrismation and then ordained you and gave you license to celebrate the holy mysteries and placed you as a superior in a monastery.

Your second baptism puts into question your whole ministry and priesthood prior to it. Does one consider the second baptism as the true one which validates all your prior ordinations and ministrations? Was your priesthood during the whole time prior to your second baptism simply potential? What then of the many people who have received the holy mysteries at your hands? Are the ministrations of a priest whose priesthood is still lacking or incomplete also lacking and incomplete? Did they finally become real only when you were baptized? What happens to those whom you received by chrismation, according to the practice of our Church, and of its Mother Church, the Russian Church?"


The two suspended priests left the OCA and were received by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

His Grace described the situation:


It is, therefore, a sad occasion indeed when a brother priest chooses to leave this glorious company for any reason. This is especially true when he leaves us in an uncanonical fashion, that is, without release, and joins himself to another jurisdiction. The severity of such an act is aggravated when that jurisdiction is an uncanonical one, at odds with the Orthodox Churches and, at the same time, making extravagant claims for itself, that is, that it is the only "church" which is faithful to the Tradition.

Motivations for such actions vary a great deal; some leave for personal reasons, some for sentimental reasons, but there are those who part company with us because they have come to the conclusion that we are no longer "fully Orthodox." The possibility for committing this unwarranted act will exist as long as there are robber bishops, who are eager to extend their jurisdictions and enjoy the sense of conquest. They are truly those who climb up over the walls to steal sheep and do not enter by the door.

Two of our fellow priests with whom we have worked and shared so much for so many years have left us, having been overcome, it seems, by the relentless barrage of negative propaganda and condemnation that emanates from the "true," "genuine," and "traditionalist" Orthodox groups. So that you may know what has happened and not speculate nor give heed to the various versions of the sad story, which have already begun to circulate, these lines are addressed to you.

Two priests had been suspended by me, one for having been re- baptized, after having been received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation, after having been ordained to the holy priesthood, and after exercising his priestly ministry for some twenty years, and the other, also having been received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation, and after having served faithfully for about the same number of years, baptized his wife, who had also been received by chrismation and had been a communicant in the Orthodox Church for nearly thirty years. Both of these priests, rather than accept the opportunity given to them to renounce their improper acts and repent of them, chose to leave the Orthodox Church in America and enter into the church that is known as "the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad."

The full letter can be seen here on the OCA homepage: http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=85&SID=12

[Herman Blaydoe]

I guess I would have to agree that they are two issues, for the purpose of this thread, but my position would be the same on both issues. To me, any baptism, outside of the Orthodox Church is heretical, as all the other heterodox sacraments or ordinances are.

And nobody here is saying any different.


If baptism is valid (don't mean to offend anyone who does not like the use of that word), then all of their other sacraments should be as well.

Ouch. That would definitely be me, and for this reason. Nobody is saying that we "accept as valid" the previous baptism. We COMPLETE or FULFILL or CORRECT--or if you must, "VALIDATE"--that which was previously done. We don't "accept" it, we fix it through Chrismation. Valid ain't a valid Orthodox concept!!


As far as I know, the Holy Spirit is not a part of a heterodox sacrament, making it efficacious, unless there is more than one church. I don't think we can pick and choose, whatever our reasons are for doing so.

Exactly. And I do not see anybody here saying differently.


Also, I believe that those received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation only, should be baptized even if it is many years after they've joined the Church.

And here we part company very strongly. It makes a mockery of Chrismation and of ecclesiastical authority. I abide by the decision of my bishop in obedience. To tell a person that they are not "valid" Orthodox because they were accepted by Chrismation can be spiritually harmful. Perhaps we should exhume St. Elizabeth the New Martyr and baptize her posthumously as well? How mormon can you get?


I agree with what was stated earlier, there is a particular and special Grace that comes from Baptism. If one is not Baptized, one does not get that grace.

So the "good thief" on the cross lacked grace? St. Elizabeth lacked grace? Something here does not compute, at least to for this bear of little brain.


Under the word obedience in the dictionary, I cannot find economia listed as a definition, nor do I find that word used for obedience in the scriptures. Is there really "any" valid reason for using economia (as we do today, certainly, there have been good reasons in the past!) other than we don't want to offend the other churches?

Is it a sin to be in obedience to one's bishop if he is in "good standing" in the Church? Were you looking in an Orthodox dictionary? Does it define the word NOUS or THEORIA as well? The rhetoric is getting a little thick, sorry.

Oh bother.

Herman the Pooh

[John W.]

Can we please delete the word "rebaptized" from our lexicon?

There is no such thing. Either a previous heterodox baptismal form is retroactively made fully Orthodox through Chrismation or a person who previously received a heterodox "baptism" receives an Orthodox baptism. Either method of reception is acceptable, based on circumstance and pastoral judgement.

There is ONE Baptism, there is no "re-baptism". And "valid" is not a valid Orthodox term!

"If heretics are allowed to baptize and to give remission of sins, wherefore do we brand them with infamy and call them heretics?"

Victoricus of Thabraca, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 568)

[Herman Blaydoe]

"If heretics are allowed to baptize and to give remission of sins, wherefore do we brand them with infamy and call them heretics?"

Victoricus of Thabraca, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 568)

Maybe I am not making myself very clear. I am NOT saying in any way, shape, or form that baptism outside of Orthodoxy constitutes or equates to Orthodox baptism. But I do say that a baptismal rite performed outside the Church can be made Orthodox. God is also outside of time and place, and does not have to obey our sense of chronology. Otherwise, what do we do with St. Elizabeth and those like her? Do we cast them out of the Church?

[Andreas Moran]

I think Herman touches upon the heart of the matter by mentioning grace. If a person received by Chrismation alone is able to experience the grace which exists in the Holy Orthodox Church as nowhere else, in the sacraments, during prayer and in communion with the saints, that can be taken to signify that he or she is Orthodox.

[James Blackstock]

I think Herman touches upon the heart of the matter by mentioning grace. If a person received by Chrismation alone is able to experience the grace which exists in the Holy Orthodox Church as nowhere else, in the sacraments, during prayer and in communion with the saints, that can be taken to signify that he or she is Orthodox.


Certainly, there is Grace! I see it on the Death Row, where I minister to the inmates! It's everywhere! I beieve there is more to the issue however, perhaps it's explained by God Himself! He tells us that we can be living in different parts of His will, depending, I suppose, on our Faith, and our state of spiritual growth...

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. KJV

If I have a choice, I'll go for the perfect will!

Seraphim

[Andreas Moran]

I meant, as I tried to say, the grace that exists, in measure and kind, only in the Orthodox Church. Of course, the Holy Spirit is not constrained and goes where He will. But the Orthodox Church provides sources of grace, and experience by a member of the Orthodox Church received by chrismation of grace from these sources signifies to me that he or she is Orthodox. In other words, Chrismation does open the doors to the sources of grace the Church provides. Why, then, do I favour baptism? It may be that God perfects the chrismation administered to a convert whereas baptism and chrismation are, by grace, undoubtedly perfect in themselves. Therefore the result of being chrismated does not mean any deficiency but that may be due to some complementary action of God's. But I can't really rationalise my preference; it is based on what I have seen, not on what I know.

[Alec Lowly]

I meant, as I tried to say, the grace that exists, in measure and kind, only in the Orthodox Church. Of course, the Holy Spirit is not constrained and goes where He will. But the Orthodox Church provides sources of grace, and experience by a member of the Orthodox Church received by chrismation of grace from these sources signifies to me that he or she is Orthodox. In other words, Chrismation does open the doors to the sources of grace the Church provides. Why, then, do I favour baptism? It may be that God perfects the chrismation administered to a convert whereas baptism and chrismation are, by grace, undoubtedly perfect in themselves. Therefore the result of being chrismated does not mean any deficiency but that may be due to some complementary action of God's. But I can't really rationalise my preference; it is based on what I have seen, not on what I know.

"The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes."

[Alec Lowly]

Archbishop Dmitri (OCA Diocese of the South) expressed his objections this way in an explanatory letter to a priest that he suspended:




The two suspended priests left the OCA and were received by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

His Grace described the situation:


The full letter can be seen here on the OCA homepage: http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=85&SID=12

Thank you, John, for this very useful reference to His Grace's letter ...

[Andreas Moran]

"The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes."

Forgive me, Alec, but I'm not sure whether, by this, you are amplifying the second sentence of my post, or rather disagreeing with the whole of it.

[Alec Lowly]

Forgive me, Alec, but I'm not sure whether, by this, you are amplifying the second sentence of my post, or rather disagreeing with the whole of it.


I entirely agree with your post, Andreas.

[James Blackstock]

And nobody here is saying any different.



Ouch. That would definitely be me, and for this reason. Nobody is saying that we "accept as valid" the previous baptism. We COMPLETE or FULFILL or CORRECT--or if you must, "VALIDATE"--that which was previously done. We don't "accept" it, we fix it through Chrismation. Valid ain't a valid Orthodox concept!!

RESPONSE: As far as I know, Baptism and Chrismation are two different Sacraments, with two completely different purposes and pocessing two completely different manifestations of Grace. One should not replace the other! If a convert doesn't need Baptism, when as you agree, his previous one was hertical, then why use economia and validate or fix his heritical Baptism and fill him with the Grace of Chrismation in opposition to canons still on the books? Why not just Baptise him? Ecumenism....Phooey! Unless there is another reason?

Exactly. And I do not see anybody here saying differently.

RESPONSE: Maybe just a little different!



And here we part company very strongly. It makes a mockery of Chrismation and of ecclesiastical authority. I abide by the decision of my bishop in obedience. To tell a person that they are not "valid" Orthodox because they were accepted by Chrismation can be spiritually harmful. Perhaps we should exhume St. Elizabeth the New Martyr and baptize her posthumously as well? How mormon can you get?

RESPONSE: Chill out Herman! I am not suggesting we dig anybody up! Nor did I allude to any kind of Mormon Baptism.



So the "good thief" on the cross lacked grace? St. Elizabeth lacked grace? Something here does not compute, at least to for this bear of little brain.

RESPONSE: God can do whatever He wants in whatever way He wants to!



Is it a sin to be in obedience to one's bishop if he is in "good standing" in the Church? Were you looking in an Orthodox dictionary? Does it define the word NOUS or THEORIA as well? The rhetoric is getting a little thick, sorry.

RESPONSE: No it is not a sin to obey your Bishop! Come on Herman, We are not talking about the eye of the soul or traits of Illumination. I think this rhetoric is being raised by you. I simply stated a fact!

Oh bother.

RESPONSE: Thank you Herman, I count you as my brother too!

Herman the Pooh

I simply don't believe we should replace akrivia with economia, in opposition to canons (Please forgive me, I was so tempted to spell it cannons just for you Herman!) still on the books. In addition this same issue is covered in the Apostolic Canons as well, in the same manner as it was in the councils.

Lastly, let me say that I believe we should all obey our Bishops, even the Apostle Paul gave us this directive...


1 Cor 11:1-2
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
KJV


However, I don't think this lets us off the hook of our conscience!


INXC,
Seraphim

[Herman Blaydoe]

We certainly need to be wary of "loose canons" running around.

You and I do not enforce the canons, that is why we have bishops.


As far as I know, Baptism and Chrismation are two different Sacraments, with two completely different purposes and pocessing two completely different manifestations of Grace. One should not replace the other! If a convert doesn't need Baptism, when as you agree, his previous one was hertical, then why use economia and validate or fix his heritical Baptism and fill him with the Grace of Chrismation in opposition to canons still on the books? Why not just Baptise him? Ecumenism....Phooey! Unless there is another reason?

I think you twist my words. Nobody is replacing anything with anything. We are simply fulfilling something not correctly received through the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Fixing, not replacing, understand?

What other reason can YOU think of? I can't think of any other reasons myself. It has nothing to do with "ecumenism".


God can do whatever He wants in whatever way He wants to!

So you say, but yet you seem to deny that later on. God is the source of Grace in the sacraments, He is not governed by them.


I simply don't believe we should replace akrivia with economia, in opposition to canons (Please forgive me, I was so tempted to spell it cannons just for you Herman!) still on the books.

There are a LOT of canons "still on the books" but not all of them are equal. Canons are GUIDES, they are TOOLS used for HEALING, not judicial laws that must be "enforced". Sometimes certain canons are more appropriate for a given set of circumstances than for others, as any casual student of church history can attest. Members of heretical groups have been accepted into the Church in a variety of ways, throughout history, from baptism to chrismation to a simple proclamation of Faith and denial of heresy. It depended on the circumstances at the time and the discernment of the bishop at the time. That is HIS job, not ours.

I don't believe we should replace bishops with laypersons, in opposition to canons. Laypeople applying canons is like practicing spiritual medicine without a 'license". Quacks kill. And spiritual quacks kill the spirit. Leave such things to the "pros" and they are those who have been designated as bishops to properly discern the Word of Truth.

[Father David Moser]

You and I do not enforce the canons, that is why we have bishops.
...
Canons are GUIDES, they are TOOLS used for HEALING, not judicial laws that must be "enforced".
...
I don't believe we should replace bishops with laypersons, in opposition to canons. Laypeople applying canons is like practicing spiritual medicine without a 'license". Quacks kill. And spiritual quacks kill the spirit. Leave such things to the "pros" and they are those who have been designated as bishops to properly discern the Word of Truth.

Yes, the canons are "tools" - they are the tools of the bishop. When the apprentice or servant usurps the tools of the master - look out! the consequences can be disastrous. Now for an example - go and watch again the Mickey Mouse presentation of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice."

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

"What makes us Christians? "Our faith," everyone would answer. How are we saved? Obviously through the regenerating grace of baptism. How else could we be? We are confirmed in our understanding that salvation comes through Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Shall we cast away the standard of teaching we received? This would surely be grounds for great sorrow; if we now reject what we accepted at baptism, we will be found to be further away from our salvation than when we first believed. We would be no different from someone who dies without baptism, or who had been baptized with an unacceptable form. We made this profession when we first entered the Church; we were delivered from idols and came before the living God. Whoever does not hold fast to this confession as his sure foundation at all times, to the end of his life, makes himself a stranger to God's promises."

St. Basil the Great

[Andreas Moran]

I was baptised in the Church of England in 1947. I somehow feel that then, it must have meant something. But what of a baptism done in the C of E today? My first wife chose baptism partly because she had been christened in the Methodist church which has no priesthood or sacraments. I don't think we should expect God continually to be making up for things when there can be no good reason not to baptise a convert.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I was baptised in the Church of England in 1947. I somehow feel that then, it must have meant something. But what of a baptism done in the C of E today? My first wife chose baptism partly because she had been christened in the Methodist church which has no priesthood or sacraments. I don't think we should expect God continually to be making up for things when there can be no good reason not to baptise a convert.

Have we so lost faith in our Church and our bishops that we no longer trust their judgement, or the power of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church?

Two different people, two different spiritual circumstances, even if there is a similar background. Two different bishops. One requires a baptism, the other says Chrismation is sufficient. Neither is wrong. it is still ONE BAPTISM in both cases. The previous baptism wasn't merely "accepted", it was corrected through the power of the Holy Spirit. In both cases, the person is a true member of the Church lacking NOTHING.

Is God the prisoner of our rites? What about the saints of the Old Testament? Did they receive an Orthodox Baptism? How about John the Baptist? We simply do not really know in his case, do we? Baptism is obviously a necessary thing, or our Lord would not tell us so, but it is not MAGIC.

Many who receive a complete, proper, Orthodox baptism will not receive salvation. Unless the Church is lying to us, there are those who never received a "proper" baptism who yet have been or will be saved. It is a mystery and it is best left to those whose job is maintaining good order in the Church to deal with in an appropriate manner. We arm-chair bishops can second-guess all we want, we do not have the awful responsibility and consequences that have been laid on the shoulders of the bishops. But if we cause one of the innocents to fall, better for us to have a millstone around our necks and be cast into the sea...

If the bishop says this person is a member of the Church, then this person is a member of the Church, fully, "catharsis" notwithstanding. He or she stands as good or bad a chance to win their personal race as another if they persevere.

I strongly suspect that receiving a baptism after receiving chrismation does more harm than good, but if the bishop decides it is appropriate in one case but not another, I will not second guess him in either. But, hey, that's just me.

Herman the Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

Who performs the baptism?

When a priest does anything sacramentally, it is only with the authority given him by the bishop. The bishop is performing the rite through the hands of the priest. If a monk or priest goes off "on his own" to do things, like baptizing someone who received Chrismation (obviously without the bishop's authority), isn't that particular cleric exhibiting disobedience? Is disobedience a good thing?

It is one thing to disagree with a bishop, especially if that bishop has clearly stepped outside the bounds of Orthodoxy. But there are proper ways to deal with that situation. Baptizing people in secret does not seem like one of them. Can you not see the possible harm in this? What if a person who was received by chrismation is told they are not "complete" even though his or her bishop says otherwise? Now they must do things "in secret" out of the sight of the bishop. How could this possibly be a good thing?

If the bishop is wrong, let him be dealt with in a proper manner. Let just grievances be brought forth, let his brother bishops decide in a God-pleasing manner how best to correct the deficiency, or in the worst case, let the individual seek another bishop, which is probably not the best solution, but we do what we must in the circumstances. But let us not be doing things in direct violation of the bishops, especially if we do so "in secret" or even in open defiance. That does NOT foster "good order" in the Church. Let us not go around telling people that they are "lacking" or "missing something" because they did what the bishop told them to do in obedience.

If YOU feel YOU must have the "full monty" to be a "full Orthodox" then I hope you and your bishop come to a mutually satisfactory solution. But those who have been accepted as fully Orthodox through Chrismation should NOT be told that they are less Orthodox because of it, considering millstones and all...

OK, I'm done.

Herman the overly loquacious Pooh

[Andreas Moran]

The thing is, Herman, people are often given the choice and they need to make an informed decision. I don't doubt that I am Orthodox. But, as has been said before somewhere, economia has become normal practice. And of course it's confusing when different parts of the Church say different things. Clearly there is debate: it is simple to avoid that debate. Let converts be baptised. Roman Catholics are one thing. But do we really think that Protestant sects that baptise in the name of the Holy Trinity confer anything?

[Father David Moser]

The thing is, Herman, people are often given the choice and they need to make an informed decision.

And this is part of the problem - I don't think that people should be "given the choice" of how to be received into the Church. How can we expect a child in the womb to make a choice about how he should be born, how he should be raised and nurtured, how he should be taught? It is the responsibility of the Bishop and then of the priest who is appointed by the Bishop to administer the sacraments. He is the one who decides, he is the one who properly "has the choice". To foist "the choice" off on the one who wishes to be born into the Church is to neglect the responsibility given by God to the clergy. (This isn't to say that a priest or bishop cannot ask a person for input and take into account their spiritual state and so make a pastoral call based on what they learn - but the choice still belongs only to the bishop or priest). I'm with Herman on this one.

Fr David Moser

[Moses Ibrahim]

The thing is, Herman, people are often given the choice and they need to make an informed decision. I don't doubt that I am Orthodox. But, as has been said before somewhere, economia has become normal practice. And of course it's confusing when different parts of the Church say different things. Clearly there is debate: it is simple to avoid that debate. Let converts be baptised. Roman Catholics are one thing. But do we really think that Protestant sects that baptise in the name of the Holy Trinity confer anything?

I agree with you... personally I think it's abuse of economia now... too much economia... less effort. Lord have mercy!

[Nina]

Let converts be baptised. Roman Catholics are one thing. But do we really think that Protestant sects that baptise in the name of the Holy Trinity confer anything?

Even for my fiance who is baptized Catholic, my spiritual father told me that: should he wish to become Orthodox, he must be baptized. This is a matter very close to my heart.

[Andreas Moran]

Herman is right that this is the responsibility of bishops. So they should get their act together. There is absolutely no reason not to baptise any convert. After all, does a convert not renounce the tenets of the Church of which he was formerly a member? I remember doing so.

[Andreas Moran]

Even for my fiance who is baptized Catholic, my spiritual father told me that: should he wish to become Orthodox, he must be baptized.

Fine! I applaud your spiritual father, Nina.

[Rick H.]

After all, does a convert not renounce the tenets of the Church of which he was formerly a member? I remember doing so.



I don't remember doing this (and that's because I didn't). I'm not sure what tenents one might think I would have even considered renouncing.

[Andreas Moran]

I remember renouncing the 'erroneous beliefs and false doctrines of the Church of England' which wasn't difficult to do since I had not been a practising member of it all my adult life. The Hapgood Service Book provides a variety of renunciations. This raises another question: is there such variation in the content of Chrismation for Converts services that some converts renounce their former faith and others do not? What a mess!

[Nina]

In the church I go at the moment I have witnessed many Chrismations of converts from heterodox background. The ones I have heard always are asked by the priest if they renounce erroneous beliefs, false doctrines and heresies of their previous religion. I do not remember by heart the service but I remember the renouncing part, the recitation of Creed and so on because it was very interesting for me since I had never seen this before.

[Paul Cowan]

I also renounced a dozen or more things. What stands out especially with the kids is being allowed to go outside and spit (and not get into trouble) on Satan.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman is right that this is the responsibility of bishops. So they should get their act together. There is absolutely no reason not to baptise any convert.

If a bishop requires this, I do not see any problem with it. My only point would be to emphasize that it would not be a "re-baptism" but merely an Orthodox baptism.

That being said, I also do not have a problem with a bishop who accepts a particular individual by chrismation, as St. Elizabeth the New Martyr was accepted. But I would have to add that in doing so, the bishop is not "accepting as valid" the baptism received outside the Church. It becomes an Orthodox baptism retroactively through the power of the Holy Spirit and is fulfilled or corrected as the Holy Spirit provides that which is lacking.

I do, however, have a serious issue with those who advocate receiving a baptism AFTER a person has been accepted into the Church through Chrismation and has been receiving the Holy Mysteries for a time. Such a practice is NOT conducive to maintaining good order in the Church. When we defy our bishops, we put ourselves outside the Church. Again, if our bishops are not doing their jobs, there are proper and God-pleasing ways to deal with the situation. But we often go for the "man-pleasing" ways instead.

So, I would have to disagree in toto with the opening premise of this thread. Baptizing someone after they have been accepted into the Church through Chrismation is NOT "essential" for "catharsis", but is harmful to the Church in general and to the person in particular.

Can we point to even ONE Father who says different or to ONE saint who was baptized AFTER being received? I can name several saints who prove my case. I think the preponderance of evidence bears me out, and I have yet to read anything that contradicts it.

[Andreas Moran]

My only point would be to emphasize that it would not be a "re-baptism" but merely an Orthodox baptism.

Exactly so.


I do, however, have a serious issue with those who advocate receiving a baptism AFTER a person has been accepted into the Church through Chrismation and has been receiving the Holy Mysteries for a time.

I agree. If I went some place and they told me I was not Orthodox and had to be baptised, I would refuse.


So, I would have to disagree in toto with the opening premise of this thread. Baptizing someone after they have been accepted into the Church through Chrismation is NOT "essential" for "catharsis", but is harmful to the Church in general and to the person in particular.

I agree. Once you're in, you're in.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In the church I go at the moment I have witnessed many Chrismations of converts from heterodox background. The ones I have heard always are asked by the priest if they renounce erroneous beliefs, false doctrines and heresies of their previous religion. I do not remember by heart the service but I remember the renouncing part, the recitation of Creed and so on because it was very interesting for me since I had never seen this before.

What you saw was a separate service done specifically for renunciations. This can be done immediately before the chrismation. (as Andreas says this service is found in Hapgood).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

Just a note for the record: Herman has misstated "the opening premise" of this thread. the premise does ~not~ maintain the insufficiency of chrismation.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think you have misstated my statement.

[Antonios]

If one is not baptized by an Orthodox priest, but rather by their blood during martyrdom for Christ's name, does one require Chrismation in order to be received by Christ?

[Nina]

If one is not baptized by an Orthodox priest, but rather by their blood during martyrdom for Christ's name, does one require Chrismation in order to be received by Christ?

Dear Antonios:

There are three kind of baptisms:

1. Orthodox (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Orthodox) conventional one. Three immersions in water, in the name of the Holy Trinity.
-A subcategory of this baptism, is baptism in air when a neonate is in life threatening risk. However if the neonate survives there should be a conventional baptism.

2. Baptism by blood. Martyrs who were not baptized (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Baptise), however they professed Christ.

3. Baptism by tears. The rarest one. A living Saint baptizes through his tears someone who is in Hell (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Hell) (for instance Saint Gregory the Great, the Dialogist who baptized the soul of emperor Trajan; and first woman-Martyr Thekla, who rescued the soul of Falconila).

The story of the actor (Martyr Porphyrius the Actor - September 15), which is so moving, is a unique case, when God turned the farse into a divine miracle, by enlightening the actor's mind and opening his spiritual eyes. However, what counted as baptism for the actor was his martyrdom (the second baptism which is by blood).

[Antonios]

Dear Nina,

Thank you very much for the post!

In Christ,
Antonios

[Olga]

Folks, this thread is not about the merits of "full" baptism vs chrismation of non-Orthodox coming into the Orthodox Church. The thread is on the propriety of a "full baptism" for people who have already been received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation, and have been communicants and participants in the life of the Church for some time. Let us return to Alec's original query:



I've been told, informally, that one of the reasons some Old Calendar jurisdictions insist upon the "rebaptism" of Orthodox who have been received by chrismation -- even those long in the Church, who have been partaking of the Holy Gifts -- is that certain sins and/or passions cannot be extirpated without Orthodox baptism. Has anybody else encountered this teaching? What would these sins and/or passions be? Is this a genuine teaching, whether true or false, or is this folklore? How do proponents of this view answer the objection that what they are saying, in sum, is that chrismation fails to supply what is lacking and that faithful reception of the Holy Gifts is insufficient for the remission of sin?


Is this practice based on historical, liturgical, doctrinal or patristic evidence, or is it simply a manifestation of the insular hubris so often seen in certain schismatic groups? The "reasoning" behind such practice, which I have rendered in bold, is particularly alarming, if this is indeed the reasoning that these groups use to justify their actions.

I add that I am in no way critical of Alec's post, far from it. This is a matter which deserves to be raised and discussed. He is simply attempting to find an answer to his question of whether such "corrections" are proper.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Because this relates to the question we are getting at in this thread. Wouldn't it be that if a martyr survived, his baptism by marytrdom would need to be 'corrected' by baptism in water and then chrismation? I think so.

So it is I think that although the normal order of these things is important we should not take them as being restrictive.

In Christ- Fr Raphael




If one is not baptized by an Orthodox priest, but rather by their blood during martyrdom for Christ's name, does one require Chrismation in order to be received by Christ?

[Andreas Moran]

That sounds right, Father, if I may say so. A 'martyr' who survives is not, by definition, a martyr.

[Nina]

Father is right. The same with babies who are in life threatening moment and are baptized in the air (or sprinkled with water sometime) in the name of the Holy Trinity, and when they survive the sacrament has to be performed.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Father is right. The same with babies who are in life threatening moment and are baptized in the air (or sprinkled with water sometime) in the name of the Holy Trinity, and when they survive the sacrament has to be performed.

And the sacrament that is performed is Chrismation, NOT baptism.

[Antonios]

Because this relates to the question we are getting at in this thread. Wouldn't it be that if a martyr survived, his baptism by marytrdom would need to be 'corrected' by baptism in water and then chrismation? I think so.

So it is I think that although the normal order of these things is important we should not take them as being restrictive.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Thank you, Father. Such an important statement for this thread! Yes, there is a normal order of things, good and holy. We should ultimately, however, not place limits on the Almighty. The Church guides us to Christ so that He may save us. In the end, it is Christ who saves us by His power and mercy. I don't think many would disagree with the notion that there are many Orthodox baptized and chrismated people who will not be saved.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think most all would agree that the intent of sacraments is to free the person. They are to give life in Christ as need be. Again I think that when thought of like this most all see the point.

What then that remains is the discussion of best or proper means.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Eric Peterson]

And the sacrament that is performed is Chrismation, NOT baptism.

Not in all cases. It depends on what instruction from the Fathers you look at. I was told that St. Basil had ones baptized in odd was in extremis baptized the usual way, should they survive. Perhaps the prayers were different, I don't know.

I would mention that this whole issue is NOT restricted to schismatical Old Calendrists. In my experience, it is more favored by some Greeks on the New Calendar rather than Russians on the Old Calendar.

[Antonios]

Dear Olga,

You are correct in reminding us what the opening question of this thread was. I still don't know the answer! :)

Father Raphael makes an excellent statement in his last post in stating that what remains in the discussion is the best or proper means. The difficulty is what is 'the best or proper means' for the individual in front of me, and is this something that is restrictive of other means? This, I believe, is where economia weighs heavily through the grace-filled ministry of Christ through His ordained priests and bishops, as well as, of course, by the mercy of God.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Alec Lowly]

Folks, this thread is not about the merits of "full" baptism vs chrismation of non-Orthodox coming into the Orthodox Church. The thread is on the propriety of a "full baptism" for people who have already been received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation, and have been communicants and participants in the life of the Church for some time. Let us return to Alec's original query:



Is this practice based on historical, liturgical, doctrinal or patristic evidence, or is it simply a manifestation of the insular hubris so often seen in certain schismatic groups? The "reasoning" behind such practice, which I have rendered in bold, is particularly alarming, if this is indeed the reasoning that these groups use to justify their actions.

I add that I am in no way critical of Alec's post, far from it. This is a matter which deserves to be raised and discussed. He is simply attempting to find an answer to his question of whether such "corrections" are proper.

Thank you, Olga, for the clarity and the clarification!

[Nina]

And the sacrament that is performed is Chrismation, NOT baptism.

From what I know they must be baptized in the proper way if they survive.

[James Blackstock]

Not in all cases. It depends on what instruction from the Fathers you look at. I was told that St. Basil had ones baptized in odd was in extremis baptized the usual way, should they survive. Perhaps the prayers were different, I don't know.

I would mention that this whole issue is NOT restricted to schismatical Old Calendrists. In my experience, it is more favored by some Greeks on the New Calendar rather than Russians on the Old Calendar.


You are correct! I was a member of a GOC for some years, and this is the practice. My concern has always been that practice of employing economia is not only the practice today but I fear it may be another step towards Ecumenical unity with "all" churches. I have attached a link to an article where our Patriarch Bartholomew expresses his hope that we can all ultimately administer the "same baptism"! There is difinately an issue, a debate, and it should be a concern for us all.
http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=1646

INXC,
Seraphim

[Herman Blaydoe]

From what I know they must be baptized in the proper way if they survive.

That is what I thought too, until I was told different, by more than one priest on this very forum.

[James Blackstock]

That is what I thought too, until I was told different, by more than one priest on this very forum.

Here is a link to an article written by two Bishops (Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios) that state the issue of Chrismation vs. Baptism very clearly


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/bapt_misund.aspx

Seraphim

[Herman Blaydoe]

Here is a link to an article written by two Bishops (Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios) that state the issue of Chrismation vs. Baptism very clearly


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/bapt_misund.aspx

Seraphim

Fine and dandy, as long as we realize that these particular bishops are not in communion with most of the jurisdictions many of us happen to belong to and so are NOT an "infallible" source of praxis for the Church as a whole.

The article at least acknowledges that praxis can and does change and has NOT been static, despite their best attempts to rationalize.

[Andreas Moran]

To which jurisdiction does Orthodoxinfo belong?

[Michael Stickles]

To which jurisdiction does Orthodoxinfo belong?

I don't know about the site as a whole, but the webmaster (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/webmaster.aspx) is Serbian Orthodox.

Archbishop Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios are hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Greece, Holy Synod in Resistance (http://www.synodinresistance.org/Administration_en/AuxentiosPhotiki.html).

Mike

[Kornelius]

And the sacrament that is performed is Chrismation, NOT baptism.

If there is no water an orthodox priest may, in an emergency, also baptize in the air but children who have been baptized in this way should also be baptized in water if they survive since the Orthodox Church has neither known nor has She ever accepted aerobaptism.

Chrismation afterwards, not baptism, is allowed only if the orthodox priest baptizes one, in an emergency, by immersing the infant in water in the Name of the Holy Trinity (not in the air). In this case there is no need afterward to read the prayers preceding baptism or the exorcisms. He only anoints him/her with Holy Chrism (Myron) and reads the prayers of the Chrism.