Reception by economia and remission of sins

[Albert Deluan]

Dear brothers, Christ is Risen!

We know that our Holy Fathers clearly deny the existence of Grace among those outside the sacred borders of the Church (heretics, schismatics and those involved in a parasynagogue)and so they don'trecognize in heretics and schismatics either the priesthood or the other mysteries, and considers them subject to ecclesiastical baptism in the nature of things to enter in the Holy Church.

But we also know that Holy Fathers and sacred Councils have stated the possibility, according to economia, of reception by chrismation or simple confession of faith:

"But inasmuch as some in Asia have been resolutely desirous, for the sake of the edification of many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted." St. Basil writes further: "The baptism of the Enkratites should be rejected and such, coming to the Church, should be baptized, but if this should be detrimental to the general well-being, then the usual custom should be adhered to, and the example of the fathers, who-judiciously arranged our affairs, should be followed. For I fear lest in desiring to keep them from hasty baptism we should hinder those seeking salvation, by the severity of postponement." (from the 1 Rule of St.Basil the Great).

The heretics and those in schism, being graceless, possess only the empty sign (or outward form) of the mystery, and it receives the complement of grace only through that mystery which unites them with the holy Church (chrismation or penance); heretics and schismatics, having the visible side of baptism, chrismation and holy orders, are entirely devoid of those gifts of grace which are bound up with these mysteries for believers within the true Church.

I'd like to ask a very important qustion to you:

those who join the Church from schism or heresy through chrismation, fill with Grace the previous visible graceless form of baptism received in the heretical/schismatic group. Because we know that Holy Baptism grants to the person the remission of sins of his/her past life because it's a regeneration in the new life in Christ, so in the case of reception by Chrism has the person granted the same remission of sins as in the case of a reception throgh Baptism?

I ask especially to the clergy who are in this Group to help me in solving this doubt.

In Christ,

Albert

[Christopher Dombrowski]

It made me think of the addage "we know where the church is, but we do not know where it is not". Though I don't know if it has any Patristic backing. Anyone?

[John W.]

I'd like to ask a very important qustion to you:

those who join the Church from schism or heresy through chrismation, fill with Grace the previous visible graceless form of baptism received in the heretical/schismatic group. Because we know that Holy Baptism grants to the person the remission of sins of his/her past life because it's a regeneration in the new life in Christ, so in the case of reception by Chrism has the person granted the same remission of sins as in the case of a reception throgh Baptism?

I have been wondering about this also as of late.

We all agree that baptism is an initiation, that it provides entry for the believer into the life of the Church.

We also agree that baptism washes clean all sins prior to holy baptism.

Forgive me Albert, but I would like to ask your question in this way:

Does chrismation "fill" the empty heretical/heterodox form of immersion that the person received in his non-Orthodox life thereby washing away the sins committed prior to the reception of said empty heretical/heterodox form of immersion and then does it refill again the past empty heretical/heterodox form in order to to wash away the sins that the person committed after receiving the empty heretical/heterodox form of immersion?

Initiation, I get. It's the washing that confuses me.

Chrismation empowers a past immersion into a baptism. Baptism washes clean all sins prior to the baptism. If I was immersed as a Protestant 20 years ago, then reception by chrismation turns that immersion into an Orthodox baptism? What about the sins that I committed after that immersion that was retroactively converted to a baptism?

Is that converted baptism then brought forward mystically into the present time in order to wash away all my sins that I committed prior (time period: Converted Heretical/Heterodox Immersion to Day of Chrismation) to my chrismation ?

[Jonathan Michael]

Chrismation empowers a past immersion into a baptism. Baptism washes clean all sins prior to the baptism. If I was immersed as a Protestant 20 years ago, then reception by chrismation turns that immersion into an Orthodox baptism? What about the sins that I committed after that immersion that was retroactively converted to a baptism?




Surely the same question could be asked of any cradle Orthodox who sins in the 20, 50, or 80 years after his baptism. The answer, I suppose, is that he confesses his sins before a priest, who then absloves them as best he is able. The evening before I was christmated, I confessed my sins before my priest but was not "absolved" (sorry if this is the wrong word) there and then (a terrible feeling in fact!). It was during the christmation that I finally knelt, had the priest cover my head, and felt him make the sign of the cross on my head.

[John W.]

The answer, I suppose, is that he confesses his sins before a priest, who then absloves them as best he is able. The evening before I was christmated, I confessed my sins before my priest but was not "absolved" (sorry if this is the wrong word) there and then (a terrible feeling in fact!). It was during the christmation that I finally knelt, had the priest cover my head, and felt him make the sign of the cross on my head.

Jonathan Michael, are you saying that in reception by chrismation, chrismation or the confession before chrismation washes clean all sins prior to chrismation in the stead of baptismal washing?

[Jonathan Michael]

I don't know, but the statement:


Baptism washes clean all sins prior to the baptism.

...surely leads to the same question regarding future sins whether the Christian in question is an Orthodox convert or a cradle-Orthodox. What of those sins commited after baptism? For a cradle Orthodox, they are confessed before a priest. As a convert, I also confessed before a priest prior to receiving the Chrism.

The main difference of course is that a cradle Orthodox Christian would usually take communion regularly - and so must take confession regularly, not just once after 20, 30 or more years. However, sadly, this has not always been the case, and in Russia it was common practice for cradle Orthodox to only take communion - and so only confess their sins - a few times in their life. Can anyone recount all their sins if the last time they confessed was 10 years, or more, ago? Probably not, yet this was still the practice, and so the economia to deal with this situation must also exist. This same economia, of accepting a man who has not confessed or prepared for communion in years and years can surely be applied to a convert who has not previously taken part in the life of the Church.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Chrismation empowers a past immersion into a baptism. Baptism washes clean all sins prior to the baptism. If I was immersed as a Protestant 20 years ago, then reception by chrismation turns that immersion into an Orthodox baptism? What about the sins that I committed after that immersion that was retroactively converted to a baptism?

Yes. As to the sins, they are confessed and absolved, just like any other Orthodox Christian.


Is that converted baptism then brought forward mystically into the present time in order to wash away all my sins that I committed prior (time period: Converted Heretical/Heterodox Immersion to Day of Chrismation) to my chrismation ?

Do we have to get legalistic about it? That is why we have bishops to make such determinations, that is why they get to wear the funny hats. What isn't washed away by baptism is absolved through confession/absolution. The sins that are forgiven on earth are forgiven in Heaven, even as our Lord said.

Herman

[John W.]

Do we have to get legalistic about it? That is why we have bishops to make such determinations, that is why they get to wear the funny hats. What isn't washed away by baptism is absolved through confession/absolution. The sins that are forgiven on earth are forgiven in Heaven, even as our Lord said.


The legalisms that are most destructive are the ones that have somehow made the exception (economia -reception of converts by chrismation) into the rule, thus depriving converts the grace of the one baptism of the Orthodox Church.

Unless I am misreading Jonathan and Herman, it appears that both are acknowledging that something "isn't washed away by baptism" ("Baptism" here is referring to the previous heretical/heterodox immersion that the convert received before chrismation. "Something" those sins committed post-heretical/heterodox immersion.)

According to J. and H., the lack of washing of the sins committed after the retroactively-activated -immersion-turned-to-Orthodox-baptism is thus made up for by confession and prayers of absolution prior to the rite of chrismation.

This strikes me as a dangerous legalism because it separates what cannot be separated in the mystery of baptism: "Baptism is not only the entry for the believer into the church; it also washes him clean of all sins prior to his holy baptism, no matter how grievous and frequent they were."

If anything, the arguments of both J. and H. should lead the potential convert to desire to be received by baptism and chrismation if only to be completely "clean of all sins prior to his holy baptism." There is nothing lacking in the mystery of baptism.

[Jonathan Michael]

This strikes me as a dangerous legalism because it separates what cannot be separated in the mystery of baptism: "Baptism is not only the entry for the believer into the church; it also washes him clean of all sins prior to his holy baptism, no matter how grievous and frequent they were."



Of course, but I thought we were all agreed that the sins in question occured after baptism.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The legalisms that are most destructive are the ones that have somehow made the exception (economia -reception of converts by chrismation) into the rule, thus depriving converts the grace of the one baptism of the Orthodox Church.

Unless I am misreading Jonathan and Herman, it appears that both are acknowledging that something "isn't washed away by baptism" ("Baptism" here is referring to the previous heretical/heterodox immersion that the convert received before chrismation. "Something" those sins committed post-heretical/heterodox immersion.)

According to J. and H., the lack of washing of the sins committed after the retroactively-activated -immersion-turned-to-Orthodox-baptism is thus made up for by confession and prayers of absolution prior to the rite of chrismation.

This strikes me as a dangerous legalism because it separates what cannot be separated in the mystery of baptism: "Baptism is not only the entry for the believer into the church; it also washes him clean of all sins prior to his holy baptism, no matter how grievous and frequent they were."

If anything, the arguments of both J. and H. should lead the potential convert to desire to be received by baptism and chrismation if only to be completely "clean of all sins prior to his holy baptism." There is nothing lacking in the mystery of baptism.

Um, well, actually, no.

What you are saying flies in the face of the history of the Church. This line of reasoning leads to claiming that the Thief on the Cross is not in paradise. This is like saying that St. Elizabeth is not a saint. This is what happens when we try to impose our own ideas on how things should be over what the Church actually teaches.

The convert IS being received by baptism and chrismation, just not within the same temporal space. It is very simple, we don't need to obfuscate it. God forgives those sins that happened prior to baptism through the baptism retroactively made "Orthodox" through Chrismation and the Eucharist and an ongoing life in the Church. Those sins committed after that baptism are forgiven through confession, just like everybody else. How hard is that to understand? God is not a prisoner of calendars or clocks.

Herman

[Jonathan Michael]

It is good, Herman, that you reminded us all of the Holy-Royal Martyr St. Elizabeth, who was received into the Church through Christmation only. The witness of the Church is important in such questions. St. Elizabeth was also, or course, elevated as a saint in the ROCOR before any other of the Orthodox churches. I mention this because of John's own affiliation; in face I notice that he and I have the same Patron - the wonderful St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco.

[John W.]

The legalism that is the most destructive is the one that has made the exception (economia) into the rule for receiving converts into the Church.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The legalism that is the most destructive is the one that has made the exception (economia) into the rule for receiving converts into the Church.

So do you condemn the Russian Church which made economia the rule in the 19th century? How about the Church of the Second Ecumenical Council? To be quite honest, the Church has not been entirely consistent on the subject through most of its history, which begs the question; what, really IS "the rule"?

Just askin'

Herman the inquiring Pooh

[John W.]

So do you condemn the Russian Church which made economia the rule in the 19th century? How about the Church of the Second Ecumenical Council? To be quite honest, the Church has not been entirely consistent on the subject through most of its history, which begs the question; what, really IS "the rule"?

I am a member of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which is part of the Russian Church.

As a general rule we are equal opportunity gift-ers. We baptize and chrismate all of our converts, though there have been exceptions.

The "rule" can be summed up:


"Baptism confers being and, in short, existence according to Christ. It receives us when we are dead and corrupted and first leads us into life. The anointing with chrism perfects him who has received new birth by infusing into him the energy that befits such a life. The Holy Eucharist preserves and continues this life and health, since the bread of life enables us to preserve that which has been acquired and to continue in life. It is therefore by this Bread that we live and by the chrism that we are moved, once we have received being from the baptismal washing." (Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ)

What about the exceptions to the rule?

Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna:


'"There have been many times in which the Church, acting out of 'economy,' has departed from the standard; that is, it has set aside the practice of Baptism and has received converts through Chrismation. Whether this was done in the past, is done now, or was done more times than it was not—such things are neither here nor there. Just as truth is not a matter of the majority view ('One man with the truth constitutes a majority,' St. Maximos the Confessor tells us), so correct practice is not defined by the number of times that exactitude is not followed. Nor does the Church’s condescension serve as a model; in Orthodoxy, we are always called to the standard, not to the exception.

History being less than ideal, the Church has not always been able to adhere to exactitude in carrying out its salvific mission. Thus, human imperfection and historical circumstance have often dictated changes in policy with regard to "economy," and these always with an eye towards the pastoral responsibilities of the Church.... Historical circumstance is not binding, but is in all cases a mitigating factor."

On a personal note, I have never met anyone in the Church who regretted getting baptized. On the other hand...

[Jonathan Michael]

It's all about obedience really, that's the important thing. If we're adding personal notes then I'll do the same, if I may. I did not choose to enter the Orthodox Church through baptism or by christmation only; it was a pastoral matter and so followed my priest on the matter. I willingly followed him, because I trusted him as a man of God.

I now regularly take communion at a Russian Church, where the vast majority of the congregation - and all of the clergy - are cradle Orthodox. I have taken communion from ROCOR priests. I've never heard them mention anything about my entry into the Church, even though the circumstances are known. In fact, I've never heard any objections (really, not one) from any Orthodox Christian about this issue. The only objections I hear are from:

1. North Americans (usually - a place I've never been to in my life)
2. Converts (always converts! I don't doubt that some cradle Orthodox hold the same view, simply that they don't seem to be so vocal about it)
3. Online (no one has ever said this in my presence, and I do enjoy the agape meals after the Divine Liturgy so it's not like I've not had the opportunity to hear this discussion raised)

So, seriously, who do you think I'm likely to listen to? I do, in fact, very much respect the ROCOR's decision to baptize the majority of converts, regardless of their background; I can see why it might be more desirable to accept converts in this way. But I also worry, because most of the articles, websites, and so on which push this "super" Orthodoxy are American, as I mentioned above. Maybe in the land that produced Mormonism, Scientology, the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nation of Islam, and more besides, the need for such strict adherance is necessary. I prefer to believe this than the alternative: that such extremism comes in fact from a mindset all too similar to those that produced the above mentioned cults.


"No matter how "right" you may be on various points, you must be diplomatic also. The first and important thing is not "rightness" at all, but Christian love and harmony. Most "crazy converts" have been "right" in the criticisms that led to their downfall; but they were lacking in Christian love and charity and so went off the deep end, needlessly alienating people around them and finally finding themselves all alone in their rightness and self-righteousness. Don't you follow them!..."
- Blessed Father Seraphim (Rose), of the ROCOR

[John W.]

"Naturally, all of the foregoing does not mean that we should create a great upheaval in the Church by denying the Church's past acts of economy in properly receiving into Orthodoxy, by Chrismation, those who fully understood the nature of the Church's actions and who were received under the practices set forth by the higher Church authority.

"As we have noted, though reception by Baptism is the general practice of the Church historically, during certain periods other practices have been allowed in receiving converts. What we must do is avoid historical relativism and look very seriously at how the notion of economy is being abused today.

"We must set a new policy, in this age of theological sophistry and ecumenical confusion,which reflects the needs of our time. We must be moderate as we insist on a return to Holy Tradition and the most conservative practices of Orthodoxy—an absolute necessity in days of ambiguity in the spiritual life, yet uncompromising in the face of that which is foreign to the true ethos of our Faith."

Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna

Highly recommened full-text here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/recptcon.pdf

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am a member of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which is part of the Russian Church.

As a general rule we are equal opportunity gift-ers. We baptize and chrismate all of our converts, though there have been exceptions.

There is certainly nothing wrong with that.


The "rule" can be summed up:

"Baptism confers being and, in short, existence according to Christ. It receives us when we are dead and corrupted and first leads us into life. The anointing with chrism perfects him who has received new birth by infusing into him the energy that befits such a life. The Holy Eucharist preserves and continues this life and health, since the bread of life enables us to preserve that which has been acquired and to continue in life. It is therefore by this Bread that we live and by the chrism that we are moved, once we have received being from the baptismal washing." (Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ)

And correcting or fulfilling the form of baptism received previously through Chrismation in no way violates, or even deviates from, this rule.


What about the exceptions to the rule?

Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna:...

Yeah, I see him quoted alot, but who are he and his currently in communion with? Is he really reliable as a spokesperson for the Church which he is "in resistance" to? I have problems with that, but that might just be me.


On a personal note, I have never met anyone in the Church who regretted getting baptized. On the other hand...

How nice for you. On the other other hand, anyone who goes out of their way to make those received through Chrismation feel like they are somehow "lesser" Christians really needs to re-read Matthew 18:6 and perhaps Matthew 23:23-24.

Herman the Pooh

[John W.]

"No Give and Take. No Exchange of Thought. It gets you nowhere, particularly if the other person's tail is only just in sight for the second half of the conversation."

Eeyore the John W.

[Andreas Moran]

On the other other hand, anyone who goes out of their way to make those received through Chrismation feel like they are somehow "lesser" Christians really needs to re-read Matthew 18:6 and perhaps Matthew 23:23-24.

I know of no one who has done this; thoughts about Chrismation, in every case I have discussed, come from the person himself. I entirely agree with John W.

[John W.]

"No Give and Take. No Exchange of Thought. It gets you nowhere, particularly if the other person's tail is only just in sight for the second half of the conversation."

Eeyore the John W.

Dear Herman the Pooh,

Please forgive me for quoting Eeyore out of context. I am well aware of the gravity of this disgrace so there is no need to remind me of the flames of Tartarus or raining sulfur.

It was not my intention to make any Orthodox Christian feel "lesser" by remembering that baptism in the Orthodox Church is indeed the standard, the rule, and reception by economy is by its very definition the exception. It seems like so obvious a thing, but given perilous times in which we are living, maybe it is not so obvious.

Neither was it my intention to preach to the choir of Orthodox Christians who uphold this standard (e.g. Mount Athos, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad), who have made their statements on the numerous iterations of this debate on these boards.

I posted these things for people, the potential converts, who are on the fence about this issue so I was obviously insensitive to those like you who were received by Chrismation. I'm sorry about this insensitivity and for hurting your feelings.

To those of you on the fence: Get baptized into the Orthodox Church!

[Herman Blaydoe]

I know of no one who has done this; thoughts about Chrismation, in every case I have discussed, come from the person himself. I entirely agree with John W.

Thanks for the anecdotal information. I can also provide direct testimony to the opposite, being a person received into the Church through Chrismation. I can attest that any feelings of "inadequacy" in many people were caused by someone else questioning the efficacy of how they were received as is being done here. So what? And besides that really does not answer the original question.

those who join the Church from schism or heresy through chrismation, fill with Grace the previous visible graceless form of baptism received in the heretical/schismatic group. Because we know that Holy Baptism grants to the person the remission of sins of his/her past life because it's a regeneration in the new life in Christ, so in the case of reception by Chrism has the person granted the same remission of sins as in the case of a reception through Baptism?

And I think it is safe to say that the answer is YES. Based on the evidence, based on the testimony, based on the history of the Church, it is the SAME remission of sins. Reception through Chrismation (assuming a proper form of heterodox baptism) does not create a "lesser" "unforgiven" Christian than a person received with an Orthodox baptism. To imply otherwise is wrong and to strain out gnats and swallow camels, at least to this bear of admittedly little brain.

We can certainly debate whether or not the current policy in certain jurisdictions is as efficatious as the policy in others, but that does not answer the original question nor does it acknowledge that different circumstances sometimes require different solutions, and at best we are simply second-guessing our bishops and being internet theologians. Nothing wrong with that in principle I suppose, but we need to be aware that others are reading what we post and trying to sort it out for themselves. We need to be aware of this and what happens when we cause our brethren to stumble and avoid millstones.

Caveat emptor. Ask your bishop and abide by his decision seems to be the best policy, regardless of what you and I think and I happily await correction if I am wrong in stating that.

Herman the eagerly awaiting correction Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Herman the Pooh,

Please forgive me for quoting Eeyore out of context. I am well aware of the gravity of this disgrace so there is no need to remind me of the flames of Tartarus or raining sulfur.

It was not my intention to make any Orthodox Christian feel "lesser" by remembering that baptism in the Orthodox Church is indeed the standard, the rule, and reception by economy is by its very definition the exception. It seems like so obvious a thing, but given perilous times in which we are living, maybe it is not so obvious.

Neither was it my intention to preach to the choir of Orthodox Christians who uphold this standard (e.g. Mount Athos, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad), who have made their statements on the numerous iterations of this debate on these boards.

I posted these things for people, the potential converts, who are on the fence about this issue so I was obviously insensitive to those like you who were received by Chrismation. I'm sorry about this insensitivity and for hurting your feelings.

To those of you on the fence: Get baptized into the Orthodox Church!

You are missing a very important point that I think needs to be pointed out. NOBODY is saying that baptism is not necessary. ALL are received into the Church through BAPTISM AND CHRISMATION, regardless and, as far as I know, without exception. It is simply that some are received through a "corrected" or "fulfilled" baptism received earlier and some aren't, and it is not up to you or me to say how it should be done.

This bear has a very thick hide, my feelings have no bearing on the discussion. My advice is, however, different than yours: be obedient to your bishop who must answer for your soul regardless of what internet theologians tell you, and do not feel you need to justify or defend that position. Do not insist you MUST be baptized if the bishop says otherwise, and do not insist you must NOT be "re-baptized" if the bishop does not choose to fulfill your previous baptism. That is his call to make, not yours, and certainly not mine.

Herman

[Andreas Moran]

I can also provide direct testimony to the opposite, being a person received into the Church through Chrismation. I can attest that any feelings of "inadequacy" in many people were caused by someone else questioning the efficacy of how they were received . . .

Thanks for the anecdotal information.

I don't think it's a matter of questioning the efficacy of what has already been done (which clearly must not be done) but of pointing out to those intending to be received that some of us who were received by chrismation would, in retrospect, have preferred baptism. And it may not be a matter of obedience if the person is given the choice, in which case they are entitled to be equipped to make a fully informed choice.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Thanks for the anecdotal information.

I don't think it's a matter of questioning the efficacy of what has already been done (which clearly must not be done) but of pointing out to those intending to be received that some of us who were received by chrismation would, in retrospect, have preferred baptism. And it may not be a matter of obedience if the person is given the choice, in which case they are entitled to be equipped to make a fully informed choice.

As long as we can agree that it is a matter of "personal preference" (although that has its own issues), rather than any "lack of grace" or impropriety then "fair enough". Given the choice, I certainly can understand that one might not want to "miss out" on the beauty and incredibly rich symbolism of a full Orthodox baptism, but obedience counts for something as well.

or so it seems etc. ...

Herman the Pooh

[John W.]

My advice is, however, different than yours: be obedient to your bishop who must answer for your soul regardless of what internet theologians tell you, and do not feel you need to justify or defend that position. Do not insist you MUST be baptized if the bishop says otherwise, and do not insist you must NOT be "re-baptized" if the bishop does not choose to fulfill your previous baptism. That is his call to make, not yours, and certainly not mine.

Good advice, but one must realize that bishops can and do exercise economy in more ways than one.

But first let's ask the question: Who is your bishop?

In my neck of the woods we have within a 60 minute drive of each other many Orthodox jurisdictions: Greek, Antiochan, OCA, ROCOR, MP, Ukrainian, Carpatho-Rusyn, Romanian. Serbian, Bulgarian...even Greek Old Calendar. In other words, when I wanted to become Orthodox, I had a choice as to which jurisdiction to enter, i.e. I had a choice of which bishop to obey.

Many potential converts can and do explore among the various jurisdictions to find the parish that feels right to them, one that shares their convictions. In the case of reception by Baptism&Chrismation or Chrismation one can find a jurisdiction that matches their values, so one does not necessarily have to stumble blindly into any parish/jurisdiction leading to a blind obedience to that jurisdiction's hierarch.

Bishops and their priests can and do exercise pastoral economy out of love. The conversion process is not just following orders. We have a say and realistically we can vote with our feet if our conscience requires it. All the parties involved, the catechumen (or inquirer), the priest and his bishop understand this.

I have a friend, who as a catechumen, decided that he wanted to be received by Holy Baptism and this against his priest's wishes. They just didn't do that sort of thing in this parish ! My friend insisted and even purchased a baptismal font big enough. The priest consulted his bishop and the bishop gave his blessing and so my friend was baptized and chrismated. Why was my friend so insistent? He wanted to know that wherever he went in the Orthodox world, there would be no questioning or reservations about how he was received into the Church. For example, if the potential convert wants no trouble in places like the spiritual heart of the Orthodox Church, Mount Athos, then he better get baptized in the Orthodox Church. That's just the reality of the situation in the wider Church.

Looking back at past Monachos discussions on this topic, one can see that priests and bishops are very lovingly accommodating to the needs of their converts. "You want to be baptized? Sure, no problem!" A priest or bishop who refuses to baptize would be one from which one could easily take a hike.

A monk told me the sure-fire advice that he gives to every potential convert so that they can receive Holy Baptism no matter what jurisdiction. The jurisdictions that primarily chrismate their converts (those who argue for the "validity" of heterodox immersion forms) will ask for some kind of proof of this prior baptism/immersion, usually in the form of a certificate. Want to be baptized in this jurisdiction? Lose the certificate. If the priest asks, "Have you ever been baptized?" One can answer in all honesty in the negative since the "One Baptism" belongs to the Orthodox Church. Very simple. Very easy.

My advice is the opposite of Herman's. Want to be baptized? Insist! Be forceful, because:

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

- Matthew 11:12

[Isaac Crabtree]

I'd like to look at some of the assumptions of the original post.

Is reception by 'oikonomia' always the filling of a mere empty, dead form? Might there be more to it than that? I have read some Orthodox writers who not only believe this theologoumena, but basically consider it the litmus test for true Orthodoxy. Others have said that this framework was imposed in the 17th-18th centuries via scholastic thought, ala St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain (nonetheless a venerable, holy, deified man).

Another opinion might possibly be that we simply don't know to what extent grace exists or is operative outside of the canonical boundaries of the Una Sancta, and that oikonomia are attempts by bishops and synods to "bind" or "loose" as they deem fitting for the reception of persons from other confessions into the fullness of grace and life that is exclusively found within the Orthodox Catholic Church.

One problem posed against this scholastic view of utter gracelessness are both anecdotes from history and from ancient practices of the churches we know to have been in effect for quite some time. I think it was Timothy of Constantinople(?) who wrote about the "three rites" by which people are received into the Church: baptism, chrismation, and confession. I would add that it became common to receive heterodox clergy from both the Latin communion and the Armenian/Miaphysite communion by way of "vesting"-- essentially a renunciation of errors, confession of the Orthodox faith, and chierotonia by the Orthodox bishop. Under a Nikodemean or scholastic view, we are forced to an extreme position: by the cleric's confession of the Orthodox faith and the bishop's laying-on of hands, he is invisibly receiving the mysteries of baptism, chrismation, and holy orders (twice in the case of priests!).

We are also presented with dilemmas over the kind of questions being asked in the application of oikonomia. If it is simply the fulfillment of a dead form, then why do modern approaches ask about the existence of a heterodox community's historical apostolic succession, or their faith in the Trinity. If only the form of the dead mystery being filled matters, then arguably a atheist who undergoes a parody of triple-immersion Trinitarian baptism is more eligible for reception by chrismation than a devout Anglican who received a sprinkling on the forehead.

Then we have the examples of entire communities being received "by the stroke of a pen" as it were, as with the century-long estrangement of the Georgian Church from the Orthodox over the former's rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. Did grace suddenly infuse their altars and clerics once concord had been arranged? No one was baptized or re-ordained. Same with the later example of the estrangement of the Bulgarian Church from the Ecumenical Throne. Again the stroke of the pen either acknowledged (perhaps also fulfilled) grace was already present in the Bulgarian Church, or the concord of the hierarchs cause grace to mechanistically flow back into the altars of the Bulgars.

Perhaps I am not alone in finding that explanation, or the scholastic way in which gracelessness was handled by St. Nikodemos of Mt. Athos, incomplete. Maybe (and may the Lord forgive me) I am wrong. I am willing to accept that, but I think the witness of history and the fathers is broader and more multi-faceted than is being assumed in the posts on this thread thus far.

In some ways perhaps oikonomia is an acknowledgment that communities separated from the Orthodox Church retain the life of grace to greater or lesser extents-- perhaps this is why the judgments of the churches have used different approaches at different times? It hardly seems fair to tell the Armenian wishing to convert: "The canons of the Synod in Trullo mandate that you be received by confession, even though your baptism, chrismation, and communion(s) in the Armenian communion were entirely empty and devoid of grace... or at any rate were utterly inferior. Not to worry, though-- you get all that grace you thought you had once you renounce your Severian errors."

Good Orthodox people-- I hope I have not offended with my opinion. I offer it here but I admit to you my understanding is not complete and I confess that I truly have found the fullness of grace and truth in the Orthodox Church, which is the one true Church of Christ.

[Isaac Crabtree]

And I will go one step further, even though it is not entirely on topic. These dilemmas, I think, are part of the questions of our age. The Church in the past struggled to define and defend the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Trinity, or the proper contemplation of the divine-human natures, wills, and energies in the Person of Christ, or the role of icons, etc. The question underlying all of the modern struggles the Church faces-- from jurisdictionalism, the role of primacy, local autocephalies, and even ecumenism-- is this question of ecclesiology, the nature of the Church and the life of grace which it offers.

To me, this is the serious question that the next great and holy Synod (and really the modern fathers, pastors, and teachers of the Orthodox Church) must properly proclaim.

[Duane]

I am a convert to Orthodoxy, recieved by chrismation into the Greek Orthodox Church, in obedience to my bishop. It was not until I read this thread that I realized the depth to which Orthodoxy struggles with many of the problems the Protestants do - such as that of "My way is better and more correct than yours."

Such a thing makes me very sad for the Chruch, and convicts me to pray all the more for unity amoung us.

Forgive me, a sinner.

Duane

[Andreas Moran]

The only 'modern struggle' Orthodoxy faces is resistance to modernism. It does not struggle with issues of whether it is 'better' than the multitude of denominations: Orthodoxy is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The only unity which is possible is the return of non-Orthodox Christians to Orthodoxy.

[Duane]

From what I see, it does struggle as the heterodox do. It seems we have our fundamentalists as well.

My apologies for any offense as a struggle on my own.

[Herman Blaydoe]

From what I see, it does struggle as the heterodox do. It seems we have our fundamentalists as well.

My apologies for any offense as a struggle on my own.

These disagreements are nothing compared say, to the times of Arius or the iconoclasts. One ancient chronicler of the times wrote how even in the marketplaces of Constantinople there would be loud debates and exclamations of "God is One!" and "God is Three!" Some call it the "Church Militant" with good reason. But even families often have their squabbles and disagreements and still remain family. I suppose those of us raised to avoid conflict find such raucous things distressing, but for others it is just being family.

Even the saints can disagree and still be saints. How is this possible? Well, in God, all things are possible...

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Ryan]

From what I see, it does struggle as the heterodox do. It seems we have our fundamentalists as well.

What does "fundamentalism" mean to you? It seems to me that, outside its original historical context (a particular brand of Protestantism insisting on certain "fundamentals" of the religion) the word is applied to just about anyone who has an uncompromising stance on any belief or principle.

[Andreas Moran]

"fundamentalism"


the word is applied to just about anyone who has an uncompromising stance on any belief

In a world which assumes relativism is good, uncompromising belief looks bad. But how can we compromise the truth?

(Saints disagreeing? I've been reading about St Joseph Volotsky and St Nil Sorsky! And these days, there's far too much of the former and not enough of the latter!)

[Andrew]

One reason that it is preferable for converts to be baptized is that it eliminates impediments to the priesthood. I know that in America this isn't held to much, but in other countries if a chrismated convert to Orthodoxy wanted to be ordained, he'd have to have no impediments to the priesthood. If he had fallen into fornication or something, he is forgiven, but he can't become a priest. If he would have been baptized, and remained pure after baptism, he would not have this problem, and would be without impediments.

[Theodora E.]

My experience with the baptism-only folks has been exclusively with over-zealous male ROCOR converts.

I have seen several, who repeatedly over the course of several years, would visit a New Calendar jurisdiction parish where they liked the priest for whatever reason, would take Communion, but then at coffee hour would attempt to stir up trouble among the parishioners by getting into arguments about baptism vs. chrismation.

I've also seen other baptism-only folks do the same thing at pan-Orthodox events locally.

It's happened enough times that I wonder what is really going on with these folks that they feel the need to do this.

[Andreas Moran]

I think baptism is preferable but one you're in you're in. Metropolitan Kallistos was received by Chrismation as, indeed, was Grand Duchess St Elizabeth. Bishop Eirenaios always wanted to ordain me but I refused.

[Andrew]

It's happened enough times that I wonder what is really going on with these folks that they feel the need to do this.

They're trolls that stepped off the internet.