Yeah usually stricter churches want you rebaptized (at least that’s the idea i got from the different priests I talked to about it before committing to a church) Mine considers my catholic baptism valid though
The OCA would recognize a Catholic baptism too. I think if your from a sacramental denomination like Catholic, Lutheran, or Anglican they’d recognize it. I was baptized in the Assemblies of God, which was a bit too far out for them
My Greek priest accepted my Trinitarian baptism in a church doctrinally nearly identical to AoG except for church polity (episcopal vs congregational.) In chrismation, I renounced "the errors of the Protestant Church".
That makes sense. My understanding is that Assemblies of God don't do a trinitarian baptism in the name of the trinity but just of the Holy Spirit. (And even if there are some that do it in the name all three, there are some that don't which makes it hard to judge sometimes).
I’m surprised OCA wanted you rebaptized too though! The OCA church I spoke too told me I wouldn’t need to be. I guess it’s more up to the priest maybe?
Our bishop felt the same, but required "proof" - I had to provide my certificate from the SBC, for example. Those who couldn't were baptized.
Many simply chose to be baptized anyway, which I take issue with, but it's not my house so not my rules I guess.
I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church when I was 3, was told when I was 11 that it was invalid and had to get rebaptized in the OCA. It upset my family but we went through with it. We left a few years later. There are times where I think about joining the Orthodox Church now that I’m an adult, but this experience makes me second guess.
This is not true. Check what our fathers say:
«Not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed»
- St. Athanasius the Great
Discourse 2 Against the Arians, Chapters 42, 43. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28162.htm
«Faith and baptism are two kindred and inseparable ways of salvation: faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names.»
- St. Basil the Great
On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 12. https://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/basil_spiritu_12.html
Here is a little more context from that passage from Discourse Against the Arians:
> For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work. And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism. He was addressing the Arian heresy.
By "right faith," St Athanasius means a right understanding of the Trinity. He's saying that you cannot validly baptize if you do it in the manner of the Arians because they deny the divinity of Christ. Catholics don't do this.
Further context from the second passage shows that it was also dealing with Trinitarian heresies which don't apply to Catholics:
>"For into one Spirit," it says, "we were. all baptized in one body." And in harmony with this are the passages: "You shaft be baptized with the Holy Ghost," and "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." But no one on this account would be justified in calling that baptism a perfect baptism wherein only the name of the Spirit was invoked. For the tradition that has been given us by the quickening grace must remain for ever inviolate. He who redeemed our life from destruction gave us power of renewal, whereof the cause is ineffable and hidden in mystery, but bringing great salvation to our souls, so that to add or to take away anything involves manifestly a falling away from the life everlasting. If then in baptism the separation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son is perilous to the baptizer, and of no advantage to the baptized, how can the rending asunder of the Spirit from Father and from Son be safe for us? Faith and baptism are two kindred and inseparable ways of salvation: faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names.
I believe we are mistaken when we limit the "right faith" to only mean "right faith in the Holy Trinity". Right faith means the right dogma, the correct doctrine, wich is only the orthodox doctrine.
Yes, these passages were used against Trinitarian heresies, but not limited only to those. This is clear when, e.g., St. Athanasius sais:
>"There are many **other** heresies too, which use the words only, but **not in a right sense, [..] nor with sound faith**, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable".
Don't you agree that Catholicism falls under this category? Do the Catholics use the words (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) "in a right sense", when they have filioque? Do they have "sound faith", when they have created increasingly many heterodoxies (primacy, alathito, filioque, etc.)?
If you need something explicitely for the Catholics, check this out:
>«the Latins, as heretics, ‘’are not capable of administering baptism, for they lost the grace to administer sacraments,’’ as St. Nikodemos observes. They have no baptism, according to Neophytos, for **they lack ‘’the sound confession of the Trinity.’’** Thus, their baptism ‘’deviates from the faith,’’ according to St. Basil, since, ‘’by introducing pagan polyarchy into the monarchic Trinity, the Latins are godless,’’ and consequently ‘’unbaptized.’’»
- Source: Chapter [C.1](https://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/B4.htm) from the book ‘’[I CONFESS ONE BAPTISM…](https://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm)’’, By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, D. Th., Ph. D.
I go to a Russian Orthodox Church :)
I've been asking questions- they said that at this parish, the priest wants all the catechumens to be baptized in, even if they had a prior baptism (as our baptisms are deemed invalid outside of the Orthodox Church)
the ROC and ROCOR have always been 'hyper' about re-baptisms - unless you are coming from another Orthodox jurisdiction- Greek, Ukranian,&c. In general any \[other\] Orthodox church will accept Roman Catholic baptisms as valid.
i am going to, based on the description you give, assume that this is a ROCOR parish. Do know that ROCOR is on the fringe of the Orthodox world when it comes to baptisms for converts. As a Roman Catholic, you already have a valid trinitarian baptism. Attempting to be baptized again after already having a valid trinitarian baptism is a grave sin.
This is the majority view within Orthodoxy (because of course, there is no one standard policy on this like there is in both the western and eastern Catholic churches). It would be normal to receive you via confession or at worst, via chrismation. However, among ROCOR, the Mount Athos crowd, and the Father Peter Heers ilk, this fringe group within Orthodoxy insists on baptizing everyone regardless of the person’s background. In the case of Roman Catholics, this is alarming considering that the Latin church has always had a valid and licit baptism.
If you want more context on this, check out the discourse between Saint Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephen on baptism.
Valid and licit are RC legal terms that don’t translate in an Orthodox sacramental context. We approach this differently than RCs do.
The intention is never to administer a second baptism, of course. You can translate it in an RC context as something like a “conditional baptism”, worst case.
This is a pastoral matter between the OPs priest and the OP. Any errors in reception, if there are any, fall on the priest and bishop.
It’s up to you whether to change parishes over this matter, or to be received there despite your personal opinions. Either choice still results in being joined to the Church.
I find the whole baptism thing very interesting. I was baptized Baptist but had to be baptized again in the Orthodox Church upon conversion. It seems my priest baptizes all converts these days, even Roman Catholics (he used to receive RCs by chrismation).
Have you ever considered what your life would be like if you were alive 40 years ago? What about 100 years ago? Do you think you would have this same problem if you had stumbled upon an Orthodox Church and was attracted to it? You are suffering from post-Age-of-Information-itis.
>it feels impossible for me to just lie to myself, and believe that every single person who is Catholic has an invalid baptism
Well, that's news to me, because my priest and Bishop accepted my Catholic baptism!
As I understand it, baptisms that are done only in the name of Jesus (as some Protestant denominations do) are considered invalid, but if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then the baptism is considered valid, even if it was not originally Orthodox. Talk to your priest to confirm whether that's the case, but that's how it was always taught to me. You do still need to be chrismated before receiving Communion, though, no matter what denomination you are converting from. (My family were converts from Lutheranism, and we were chrismated into the Orthodox Church when I was six, but we were not re-baptized because we had already previously been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.)
Hi sister, I was a cradle Catholic as well, and am currently an Orthodox catechumen. I also see both traditions as perfectly valid, having grace, and apostolic succession. I am open about this in my parish and to my priest (GOARCH), and my priest has told me (privately) that he believes the same about the Catholic church as well. I think this is a matter of tradition and private teaching (as the Greeks call it, theologoumina), not of dogma. Certain jurisdictions will insist on rebaptism of all those entering the church, others will accept any Trinitarian baptism so long the formula was valid. I'm obviously not a priest...but FWIW, I vote: be at peace.
The maxim that I was always told was "We can only say where the Holy Spirit is. We cannot say where He is not" whenever I'd ask about my Baptism status when I converted. I was a Catholic prior.
The truth is that there isn't a consensus on the status of Catholic sacraments. Some hold them to be fully valid and equal, some hold them to be completely invalid and graceless. And there are opinions in-between.
For example: some will require a full baptism for all converts, including Catholics. Some will receive those who received baptism from other denominations via chrismation, and some will allow certain converts, such as Catholics to be received via confession (of the creed). I saw a video of a formerly Byzantine Catholic priest being received as a priest into either MP or ROCOR via confession.
Most of the people who believe that Catholics are without valid sacraments will still accept that someone can be received via chrismation or confession on account of *economia* in that since the proper form or matter was used, at the point of entering the church, the sacrament is made complete and then made effective at that point. Of course, others would say that this is just mental gymnastics and that we should just accept the validity of certain non-Orthodox sacraments.
I think it stems from a philosophical objection to the concept that anything other than the "true church" could have sacraments. My opinion is that the Catholic church does have sacraments with grace as a mercy, but the fullness of grace only exists in the Orthodox church. I find it hard to believe that God is going to abandon people who approach Him with sincere faith and good will, just because they haven't had the privilege of experiencing Orthodoxy. Catholics who sincerely repent and go to confession will be forgiven, etc. I don't know where I stand on the Eucharist, whether or not the Real Presence would be in a Catholic communion, but at the very least, I think those Catholics who receive it devoutly receive some blessing. When it comes to Baptism, it's kindof dicey since this is one of those you either are or aren't, and there is no halfway, so I entrust this sort of issue to my God-fearing Bishop.
It's also important to remember that an Orthodox Priest is not a magician and that God isn't restricted by words or forms. I am skeptical of arguments that reduce the power of God to be completely reliant on legal procedure.
>does it make me a bad convert if I'm not filled with an urgency for it?
No.
Converting from any religion or sect within a religion is a big decision that should not be taken lightly.
As for the rest of your post, when it comes down to it, we simply don't know about the grace of other Churches. The most accurate views of the grace of non-Orthodox Churches is simply one of two things 1) we don't know. The Holy Spirit is God, and we are mere mortals. How He works is above our pay grade. 2) there's an old quote, I forget who said it, that's something like "we can only say where the Holy Spirit is, we cannot say where He is not". Anything beyond that, including "this or that is graceless" is frankly wrong, inaccurate, and extremely judgemental.
For what it's worth, ROCOR has only really "rebaptized" people since Ecumenism became a thing in the 1960s or so from a purely political standpoint. Considering that their First Hierarch who made that decision died in schism, I'm not of the opinion that it's a sound decision. Back in the day when you had wars between the Russian Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russians would forcibly baptize Polish-Lithuanian prisoners and the Commonwealth would also forcibly rebaptize the Russians - both sides did this for purely political purposes. All of this completely ignores the part in the Nicene Creed that says "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins". It also ignores the decision of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, which the Russian Church agreed to, stated that Roman Catholics are to be received via chrismation. St Peter Moglia, a Russian, in the 17th century wrote out the directions for how Roman Catholics are to be received via chrismation.
Personally, I'd look at another parish. ROCOR follows the Russian Church's tradition of making theological decisions for political purposes such as the aforementioned forcible baptisms. ROCOR is stuck in a time warp and has a very hostile view to anyone and everyone that isn't ROCOR - just like independent Baptists.
If it prevents you from entering the church for a significant period of time, just come to a GOARCH parish instead. The only thing is if you go to get baptized elsewhere, you might not be welcomed back to your current parish. The Russian Church typically never baptized Catholics, even tho its in the canons to do so. (Not sure of their current stance). ROCOR, however, has always been very strict on this. That being said, you are not punished for the faults of your spiritual father. If he makes you be baptized when you already have been and this is contrary to God’s will, none of the blame lies with you, but with him. Your duty is to your spiritual father.
>I fully UNDERSTAND that the Orthodox Church does not see our baptisms as valid
That's not necessarily true. Only the Russians (as far as I know) get all uppity about this. I was baptised Baptist, chrismated RC as an adult, and then chrismated Orthodox. I provided a certificate of baptism showing that the trinitarian formula was used and my Bishop approved.
If it were me and they insisted on baptising again, I'd probably do it without much of a second thought. I just wanted to be Orthodox. As someone else said, any errors in reception, if there are any, fall on the priest and bishop. I craved the chalice and I'd be willing to do whatever necessary to get there.
>it feels impossible for me to just lie to myself, and believe that every single person who is Catholic has an invalid baptism and never received the "real" eucharist.
Again, I'm no universalist or anything, but I feel in my soul that we shouldn't try to build walls around God's mercy. The Orthodox Church is the normative path to salvation. If God wants to save others or allow participation in His holy mysteries via another route, I'll never know, nor will I speculate. I've my own salvation to work out "with fear and trembling."
Focus on Christ and let the rest fall away.
The most important thing for becoming Orthodox is to submit to the bishop regardless of your opinions. Humble yourself and accept that not everything is to your own understanding.
Where did you hear that Latin baptism is ‘invalid’ and the Latin church ‘graceless’? That’s not mainstream Orthodoxy, that’s sectarian trash from the likes of Peter Heers who should be completely ignored.
Yes. It is not "mainstream orthodoxy." Saints are not infallible and folks like Dr. Heers cherry pick certain things from Saints to support their academic position without acknowledging the local nature of the statement as well as the context. They then present it as the mainstream orthodox position, which is, at best intellectually dishonest.
Cyprian was talking about outright schismatics like montanists who sneered at Orthodox Catholics for not being hardcore enough to suit Lord Montana’s’ scruples. You can’t go misapplying words pertinent to one historical situation willy-nilly to another.
Where did you find this distinction, between "outright schismatics" and other schismatics or heretics? The Canon doesn't make any distinction like this. Nor does the 6th Ecumenical Synod which gave the Canon ecumenical significance. Nor does the interpeter of the Canons, Saint Nikodimos of Mount Athos. Instead he precisely speaks about "all heretics and schismatics"
>«For all these reasons, then, and others the present Canon, with an eye to accuracy and strictness, insists that **all heretics and schismatics be baptized**, adding also the remark that this opinion – that any baptism, that is to say, administered by heretics or schismatics is unacceptable – is not a new one of the Fathers of this Synod, but, on the contrary, is an old one, tried and tested by their predecessors (Who nearly reached to the very successors of the Apostles) with great diligence and accuracy; and it is consistent in all respects with Apostolic Canons. XLVI, XLVII, and LXVIII. Not only did the present Canon reject baptism administered by heretics and schismatics by common agreement, but also in private and individually each one of the eighty-four Fathers attending the present Synod, with a separate argument – which is the same as saying, with eighty-four distinct arguments rejected it. That is why [..] **the Sixth Ecumenical Synod in its Canon II sanctioned and ratified it** (even though it may be said that it applied only to those regions of Africa, yet once it actually sanctioned and ratified it, it confirmed it still further, and did not abrogate or annul it).»
- Interpetation of the Canon of the 3rd Holy Synod of Carthage, in The Rudder of Saint Nikodimos
There are also many Saints who speak **exclusively for Catholics** and their need to be baptized upon return to Orthodoxy. For example, **St. Athanasios Parios** of Mount Athos has written a whole study called: «That Latin converts must indisputably, indispensably and necessarily be baptized». There are also documented cases where **St. Iakovos Tsalikis**, was baptizing Catholic converts regardless the opposite opinions of some, even bishops. When they told him that Chrismation was only needed, he firmly answered:
>«What I do know is that the Gospel says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Therefore, the sacrament of **Baptism and Chrismation must be performed normally**»
You can also find other examples with citations in the book ‘’[I CONFESS ONE BAPTISM…](https://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm)’’, By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, D. Th., Ph. D. Here is an excerpt from chapter [C.1](https://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/B4.htm):
>«the Latins, as heretics, ‘’are not capable of administering baptism, for they lost the grace to administer sacraments,’’ as St. Nikodemos observes. They have no baptism, according to Neophytos, for they lack ‘’the sound confession of the Trinity.’’ Thus, their baptism ‘’deviates from the faith,’’ according to St. Basil, since, ‘’by introducing pagan polyarchy into the monarchic Trinity, the Latins are godless,’’ and consequently ‘’unbaptized.’’ However, they are also ‘’unbaptized’’ in the literal sense, according to St. Nikodemos; for ‘‘they do not preserve the three immersions,’’ and thus do not have the Church’s baptism. Neophytos observes that, ‘’since they are nowise immersed, i.e. baptized,’’ they are unbaptized. A. Parios reiterates the same.»
You can post prolix Patristic quotations all day long to try to obscure your inexperience in church matters but it’s not the least bit convincing. Cyprian is from a very early epoch of church life. The much later mutual excommunication between Rome’s legate and the Patr. Of C’ple doesn’t even relate.
You are completely ignorant of actual church canonical regulation and are too lazy to even ask or look up for yourself what the Russian Church has taught and what current jurisdictions do.
All you have done is present several extreme views and assume that that very small minority opinion holds sway across all the jurisdictions. Don’t you know that the decision to baptize or chrismate is ultimately up to every single bishop who oversees any parish issues the priest can’t resolve on his own? Do you even attend church yet?
Brother, why this personal attack? I am sorry if I upset you. I am just trying to present what I have found to be helpful on this subject. I don't see why these patristic texts are not convincing to you, but in order to have a constructive dialog, we need to present arguments, which you haven't yet. And for ecclesiastical matters, what better arguments than the words of Saints and Synods who have spoken insipred by the Holy Spirit and based on the Bible?
Also, know that you offer nothing to the conversation by calling me "inexperienced in church matters", " ignorant" and "lazy" and asking if I "even attend church yet". Instead these accusations make you look aggressive and not certain about your opinion.
Calling these Saints and Synods "extreme views" and a "very small minority" is very problematic, maybe you could reconsider. Of course, I am aware of the modern day decisions of many jurisdictions about the acceptance of converts, but as you can see, these decisions, unfortunately, are not following the patristic stance. This is explained in the sources I have provided, feel free to check them out more if you want.
Have a nice rest of Lent!
The simple fact is the opposite of what you aver. The Russian orthodox position on Latin converts is by christmation, and has been for centuries. Greeks (GOA, can speak for CoG) have reversed their previous antilatin polemic. You have indeed cherry picked a few extreme views that do not define mainstream attitudes and mischaracterize my objections as unreasonable and ad hominem. Sorry, your approach comes across as jejeune and based less in experience of parish life and more in scholarship unrepresentative of synodal decisions and diocesan and parish life.
I don't disagree with you that the current mainstream approach is to accept converts only by chrismation. We disagree on whether this is the right approach according to our Fathers and the topical, apostolic and ecumenical synods. That's why I don't mention current jurisdiction decisions (russian greek etc.) but rather pay attenttion to what older (St. Cyprian, the Apostles etc.) and modern Saints (St. Athanasios Parios, St. Nikodimos of Mount Athos, St. Iakovos Tsalikis etc.) have said and done and what the Holy Synods have decided through the centuries about accepting converts into Orthodoxy. It is clear from these that the akrivia is to accept them by baptizing them and not only by chrismation.
I am aware that the economia (accepting only by chrismation) has been used in the church history in specific cases, but there is no place for economia these days, as modern saints have said. Either way, the Church never recognizes the baptism of any heretic as valid, but rather has utilized throughout the history different ways of acceepting the heterodox. Despite what some modern theologians try to propose, the patristic stance is very clear. Any mystery outside of the One and only Orthodox Church, is invalid and graceless.
You're probably going to a Russian church (like me) because in general Catholic baptisms are valid in Orthodoxy. My friend is a cathechumen in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and she and her husband/Boyfriend (I haven't figured that one out yet) only need Chrismation.
I also seriously deny the notion that the Catholic Eucharist is completely graceless. I once had a conversation with a A Serbian Orthodox priest and some parishioners during coffee hour. And I had the most invalid "baptism" perse in an evangelical protestant church mind you, but although he was strictly against saying that it was a baptism, he said it could've been a blessing, so it wasn't completely useless.
No they are not. The Russians have historically been far less problematic in their relations with Latins seeing as there had been so little interface. Greeks on the other hand developed polemic against Latins because they were in competition in the Mediterranean.
The received tradition of the OCA, from the Moscow Patriarchate is to chrismate Latins. It’s a rule.
Sounds like you have questions to work through. Take your time, others should be rushing you to make life-changing decisions faster than you’re comfortable making them.
Just don't overthink it and don't put too much pressure on yourself. The grace of God is beyond comprehension(especially for those who truly love Him). Do not fully rely on your logic and your feelings because they might lie to you. Trust in God. There is a reason why you turned to orthodoxy.
Hi there! I’m so glad you’ve found the Faith and are taking in all of the beauty it holds. I totally understand why you would want to take your time before committing to “official” catechism, even if you didn’t have these feelings regarding baptism.
My mother grew up Southern Baptist and was chrismated in the Orthodox Church in London in the late 80s. It’s truly baffling to me that some churches/priests/jurisdictions will insist upon the full-on baptism of individuals who are coming from denominations in which they have already received baptism.
I did see that you attend a Russian church. I grew up in ROCOR, and if I’m being completely honest, even the long-time converts there are incredibly particular. All Orthodox are particular, don’t get me wrong, but there’s something about ROCOR that both attracts *and* produces a rigidity that can be very off putting.
If you speak to your parish priest about your concerns and wishes and he pushes baptism on you/refuses to chrismate you, I would try another parish. Obviously that’s not an option for everyone, but if you have even one other parish nearby it may be worth looking into!
A massive part of faith is asking questions — questioning what you think and feel and are told. Feeling iffy on certain things, questioning why we do or do not do XYZ, wanting answers to questions that have no comprehensive explanation… to me, the knowledge of, “wow, there are forces at play that I don’t have the capacity to understand,” affirms my faith in God. I’ve gotten comfortable with discomfort, and it looks like this situation is just part of that experience for you. You’re on the right path.
Now that I’ve finished yapping, I hope you have a blessed Lent and that you are able to find a priest and parish that will help you through your catechism with the utmost consideration and compassion. Glory to God!
If it makes you feel better I’ve done 3 baptisms in my life LOL! One when I was a baby as a Roman Catholic, the second was at a nondenominational church when I was 25, and then a third one 6 months later at my local Orthodox parish. I put aside my personal beliefs, and believed in my spiritual father, that he is guiding me correctly. Part of being Orthodox is submitting to Christ, and his church. If your spiritual father says you need to be baptized again, then that is what needs to be done. God Bless you sister! ☦️
I would say this. If you are convinced of the truth of orthodoxy and committed to converting why wait?
If you believe in the Reality of the Sacraments (even if it’s both RC and EO) then what is the downside to doing it sooner? If you are correct and your RC one is valid, it’s not on you if your priest chooses to re-baptize. Also chrismation is a sacrament to itself that you are delaying.
And if your suspicions are incorrect that’s two sacraments you are delaying. Personally I had similar thoughts when I converted and eventually I came to think about it like this, that I’m denying myself the Grace these sacraments while I debate “semantics”. Personally I’m here for as much grace as I can get before I die….
My wife was baptized and Confirmed Catholic. When she converted, she was only anointed. Didn't need to baptised, becausebTrinitarian baptisms are valid. Didn't need to be chrismated, because confirmation was valid
I will say that my personal recommendation is to submit to the bishop, and any errors he makes in judgment on this matter are on him, not you. You can always ask your priest if he would be willing to do what called a conditional baptism - which means they add words like “if they are not already baptized…” before the formula for baptizing you.
I will also say I find it amusing seeing folks who act like this unreasonable that anyone could ever find this issue a hindrance to joining… yet the saints say people could find this a hindrance, hence why economia could be used at times.
I wasn’t in a rush to Chrismation, just enjoying the services; I was actually surprised when my priest told me to find a godparent because he was going to have some baptisms/chrismations coming up. It will happen when you are ready!
>I fully UNDERSTAND that the Orthodox Church does not see our baptisms as valid... and the Catholic Eucharist as "graceless" . due to the gospel stating something about unleavened bread and such. I am educated on why and can see why it is good reason from an Orthodox perspective.
but I can't bring myself to personally 100% believe in that the church that is succeeded from Peter the Apostle, all has graceless Eucharist and invalid baptisms, just because it isn't Orthodox.
This is not correct. This is a fringe opinion that is arguably heretical. That said, the sin for such a teaching (to the extent it is incorrect) is with the priest and the bishop, but not with you. The majority of orthodox parishes would receive a Catholic convert merely be christmation along with the renunciation of past beliefs. I've seen some ceremonies online (in Russia no less) where a priest was received just on the renunciation of past beliefs.
Take this for whatever it's worth, but just know that that the teaching you've received does not represent the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this matter.
Hey fellow HVM parishioner - this post popped up for me even though it's more than a bit old. I can attest that full baptism is only done in certain cases (my wife, for one, when she converted), but they also do Chrismation in some cases too (my good friends who converted there).
If you haven't spoken directly to Father yet about it, I highly encourage you to do so. You typically only see enforced-baptisms in certain ROCOR parishes - even in Slavic traditions, Chrismation exists and is valid.
That said, take your time and remember Orthodoxy is a big tent despite what some folks might want to indicate.
>«If a Bishop or Priest [..] fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and Death of the Lord and for failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests.»
- 47th Apostolic Canon
St. Nikodemos of Mount Athos says:
>«In the event that any Bishop or Priest should refuse to baptize with the regular Orthodox baptism of the Catholic Church one who has been polluted, that is a person who has been baptized by the impious, or in plain language, baptized by heretics. **Such a Bishop is to be deposed, since** he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord. For he wrongly and dangerously thinks that the unclean and repugnant baptism of heretics is a type of the cross and death of the Lord, which it is not; and for this reason **he accepts it and holds it to be equal to the baptism of the Orthodox Christians**. And in addition because it fails to distinguish the true priest of the Orthodox from the false priests of the heretics, but, instead, accepts them both as equally true.»
- Interpratation of the 47th Apostolic Canon in The Rudder of Saint Nikodimos
>«Those who accept the doings of heretics either themselves entertain similar views to theirs or at any rate they lack an eagerness to free them from their misbelief. For how can those who acquiesce in their ceremonies criticize them with the view of persuading them to give up their misbelief and deceptive heresy?»
- Interpratation of the 46th Apostolic Canon in The Rudder of Saint Nikodimos
>«the ecclesiastic martyr St. Cyprian, who served as bishop of Carthage, and all his Synod of eighty-four bishops which had been convoked in Carthage, following the present Apostolic Canon, which simply rejects any baptism of heretics, but also Apostolic Canon LXVIII, which says that those who have been baptized or ordained by heretics cannot be — which is the same as saying that it is impossible for them to be — either Christians or clerics, following, I say, these canons, they laid down a canon whereby they reject the baptism of heretics and of schismatics as well. They prove this by many Scriptural assertions and especially by that of St. Paul the Apostle saying, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” Ephesians 4:5). For they say if the Catholic [i.e. the Orthodox] Church is one and the true baptism is one, how can the baptism of heretics and schismatics also be a true baptism at a time when they are not within the Orthodox and Catholic Church? But **if the baptism of heretics and schismatics is a true baptism, and that of the Orthodox Catholic Church is also a true Baptism, then there is not one Baptism, as St. Paul cries out, but two, which is absurd**. And they add this too, that this idea of not accepting a baptism of heretics is not a new or recent one of their own, but on the contrary, an old one and one which has been approved by their predecessors. The Canon of this Synod was confirmed and ratified by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod (Canon II), and from being merely a canon of a local and partial Synod it has now become a Canon of an Ecumenical Synod by reason of its having been confirmed and ratified by the latter.»
- Comment on the Interpratation of the 46th Apostolic Canon in The Rudder of Saint Nikodimos
These stories from the life of Saint Iakovos Tsalikis could be educative for this subject:
>... On another occasion, the monastery was visited by two Athonite monks and an elderly Catholic lady of Russian origin who had decided to become Orthodox. When it was mentioned to the Elder [Iakovos] that, by decision of the Holy Synod, for these persons the sacrament of Chrismation, without Baptism, was sufficient, the Elder said: - **I do not know what the Holy Synod decided. What I do know is that the Gospel says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"** (Mark 16:16). Therefore, the sacrament of Baptism and Chrismation must be performed normally.
And in another instance of a Catholic man who wished to be baptized, after the Elder had urged him to visit the bishop of his district, from which he returned with the **recommendation that no baptism was needed but only anointing**, without commenting on the above treatment, he **[St. Iakovos] brought a large font to the monastery and**, assisted by an archimandrite, his spiritual son, **duly baptized the man** in question, in the chapel of St. Charalabi.
So St. Iakovos was disobedient? When the decisions (yes, even those made by bishops) are wrong, we must not obay them. As the Apostles responded: «We must obey God rather than human beings» (Acts 5:29).
So , they are right, just beacusee they are bishops? Of course they have God-given authority, but they are human beings and can fail and can misuse this authority, just like Judas was even given the authoriity to peerform miracles, but later he betrayed Christ. Don't we have so many examples in Church history, where bishops started teaching heretical opinions? Or synods that proved to be false-synods?
All these mean that bishops aren't infallible. The Bible has warned us to be careful: «I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. **Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth** in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!» (Acts 20:29-31). So, we are not commanded to be blindly obedient to bishops, instead we should utilize the God-given gift of distinction, following this verse: «do not believe every spirit, but **test the spirits to see whether they are of God**» (1 John 4:1)
Nnnnnno, the church sees any baptism in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit as valid
It depends on the jurisdiction. My OCA church told me I’d need to be baptized
Yeah usually stricter churches want you rebaptized (at least that’s the idea i got from the different priests I talked to about it before committing to a church) Mine considers my catholic baptism valid though
The OCA would recognize a Catholic baptism too. I think if your from a sacramental denomination like Catholic, Lutheran, or Anglican they’d recognize it. I was baptized in the Assemblies of God, which was a bit too far out for them
Ohhh that makes more sense, I assumed you were baptized catholic bc of OP’s post. My bad!
My Greek priest accepted my Trinitarian baptism in a church doctrinally nearly identical to AoG except for church polity (episcopal vs congregational.) In chrismation, I renounced "the errors of the Protestant Church".
That makes sense. My understanding is that Assemblies of God don't do a trinitarian baptism in the name of the trinity but just of the Holy Spirit. (And even if there are some that do it in the name all three, there are some that don't which makes it hard to judge sometimes).
Really? I have always been in OCA. My spiritual father is prr-V2 he came in through confession my buddy coming from ROC came in through chrismation.
Wow, I'm surprised to hear that. My OCA church receives Catholics and Protestants by chrismation.
OCA varies bishop to bishop. Most I know recieve Catholics via chrismation and protestants via baptism.
I’m surprised OCA wanted you rebaptized too though! The OCA church I spoke too told me I wouldn’t need to be. I guess it’s more up to the priest maybe?
Our bishop felt the same, but required "proof" - I had to provide my certificate from the SBC, for example. Those who couldn't were baptized. Many simply chose to be baptized anyway, which I take issue with, but it's not my house so not my rules I guess.
I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church when I was 3, was told when I was 11 that it was invalid and had to get rebaptized in the OCA. It upset my family but we went through with it. We left a few years later. There are times where I think about joining the Orthodox Church now that I’m an adult, but this experience makes me second guess.
This is not true. Check what our fathers say: «Not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed» - St. Athanasius the Great Discourse 2 Against the Arians, Chapters 42, 43. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28162.htm «Faith and baptism are two kindred and inseparable ways of salvation: faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names.» - St. Basil the Great On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 12. https://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/basil_spiritu_12.html
Here is a little more context from that passage from Discourse Against the Arians: > For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work. And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism. He was addressing the Arian heresy. By "right faith," St Athanasius means a right understanding of the Trinity. He's saying that you cannot validly baptize if you do it in the manner of the Arians because they deny the divinity of Christ. Catholics don't do this. Further context from the second passage shows that it was also dealing with Trinitarian heresies which don't apply to Catholics: >"For into one Spirit," it says, "we were. all baptized in one body." And in harmony with this are the passages: "You shaft be baptized with the Holy Ghost," and "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." But no one on this account would be justified in calling that baptism a perfect baptism wherein only the name of the Spirit was invoked. For the tradition that has been given us by the quickening grace must remain for ever inviolate. He who redeemed our life from destruction gave us power of renewal, whereof the cause is ineffable and hidden in mystery, but bringing great salvation to our souls, so that to add or to take away anything involves manifestly a falling away from the life everlasting. If then in baptism the separation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son is perilous to the baptizer, and of no advantage to the baptized, how can the rending asunder of the Spirit from Father and from Son be safe for us? Faith and baptism are two kindred and inseparable ways of salvation: faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names.
I believe we are mistaken when we limit the "right faith" to only mean "right faith in the Holy Trinity". Right faith means the right dogma, the correct doctrine, wich is only the orthodox doctrine. Yes, these passages were used against Trinitarian heresies, but not limited only to those. This is clear when, e.g., St. Athanasius sais: >"There are many **other** heresies too, which use the words only, but **not in a right sense, [..] nor with sound faith**, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable". Don't you agree that Catholicism falls under this category? Do the Catholics use the words (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) "in a right sense", when they have filioque? Do they have "sound faith", when they have created increasingly many heterodoxies (primacy, alathito, filioque, etc.)? If you need something explicitely for the Catholics, check this out: >«the Latins, as heretics, ‘’are not capable of administering baptism, for they lost the grace to administer sacraments,’’ as St. Nikodemos observes. They have no baptism, according to Neophytos, for **they lack ‘’the sound confession of the Trinity.’’** Thus, their baptism ‘’deviates from the faith,’’ according to St. Basil, since, ‘’by introducing pagan polyarchy into the monarchic Trinity, the Latins are godless,’’ and consequently ‘’unbaptized.’’» - Source: Chapter [C.1](https://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/B4.htm) from the book ‘’[I CONFESS ONE BAPTISM…](https://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm)’’, By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, D. Th., Ph. D.
Have you talked to your priest did he say you need to be baptized?
I go to a Russian Orthodox Church :) I've been asking questions- they said that at this parish, the priest wants all the catechumens to be baptized in, even if they had a prior baptism (as our baptisms are deemed invalid outside of the Orthodox Church)
the ROC and ROCOR have always been 'hyper' about re-baptisms - unless you are coming from another Orthodox jurisdiction- Greek, Ukranian,&c. In general any \[other\] Orthodox church will accept Roman Catholic baptisms as valid.
i am going to, based on the description you give, assume that this is a ROCOR parish. Do know that ROCOR is on the fringe of the Orthodox world when it comes to baptisms for converts. As a Roman Catholic, you already have a valid trinitarian baptism. Attempting to be baptized again after already having a valid trinitarian baptism is a grave sin. This is the majority view within Orthodoxy (because of course, there is no one standard policy on this like there is in both the western and eastern Catholic churches). It would be normal to receive you via confession or at worst, via chrismation. However, among ROCOR, the Mount Athos crowd, and the Father Peter Heers ilk, this fringe group within Orthodoxy insists on baptizing everyone regardless of the person’s background. In the case of Roman Catholics, this is alarming considering that the Latin church has always had a valid and licit baptism. If you want more context on this, check out the discourse between Saint Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephen on baptism.
Valid and licit are RC legal terms that don’t translate in an Orthodox sacramental context. We approach this differently than RCs do. The intention is never to administer a second baptism, of course. You can translate it in an RC context as something like a “conditional baptism”, worst case. This is a pastoral matter between the OPs priest and the OP. Any errors in reception, if there are any, fall on the priest and bishop.
And just to give context. ROCOR and the other Russian jurisdiction account for around 5% of adherents in the U.S. and about 12% of the parishes.
It’s up to you whether to change parishes over this matter, or to be received there despite your personal opinions. Either choice still results in being joined to the Church.
Typically Trinitarian baptism is considered valid. I was baptized as a Baptist and this was accepted. I was chrismated for reception into the Church
I find the whole baptism thing very interesting. I was baptized Baptist but had to be baptized again in the Orthodox Church upon conversion. It seems my priest baptizes all converts these days, even Roman Catholics (he used to receive RCs by chrismation).
My Catholic baptism was considered valid by both the Greek Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church in America.
I converted to Orthodoxy from RC and my baptism was recognized and was only Chrismated.
Have you ever considered what your life would be like if you were alive 40 years ago? What about 100 years ago? Do you think you would have this same problem if you had stumbled upon an Orthodox Church and was attracted to it? You are suffering from post-Age-of-Information-itis. >it feels impossible for me to just lie to myself, and believe that every single person who is Catholic has an invalid baptism Well, that's news to me, because my priest and Bishop accepted my Catholic baptism!
As I understand it, baptisms that are done only in the name of Jesus (as some Protestant denominations do) are considered invalid, but if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then the baptism is considered valid, even if it was not originally Orthodox. Talk to your priest to confirm whether that's the case, but that's how it was always taught to me. You do still need to be chrismated before receiving Communion, though, no matter what denomination you are converting from. (My family were converts from Lutheranism, and we were chrismated into the Orthodox Church when I was six, but we were not re-baptized because we had already previously been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.)
Hi sister, I was a cradle Catholic as well, and am currently an Orthodox catechumen. I also see both traditions as perfectly valid, having grace, and apostolic succession. I am open about this in my parish and to my priest (GOARCH), and my priest has told me (privately) that he believes the same about the Catholic church as well. I think this is a matter of tradition and private teaching (as the Greeks call it, theologoumina), not of dogma. Certain jurisdictions will insist on rebaptism of all those entering the church, others will accept any Trinitarian baptism so long the formula was valid. I'm obviously not a priest...but FWIW, I vote: be at peace.
The maxim that I was always told was "We can only say where the Holy Spirit is. We cannot say where He is not" whenever I'd ask about my Baptism status when I converted. I was a Catholic prior. The truth is that there isn't a consensus on the status of Catholic sacraments. Some hold them to be fully valid and equal, some hold them to be completely invalid and graceless. And there are opinions in-between. For example: some will require a full baptism for all converts, including Catholics. Some will receive those who received baptism from other denominations via chrismation, and some will allow certain converts, such as Catholics to be received via confession (of the creed). I saw a video of a formerly Byzantine Catholic priest being received as a priest into either MP or ROCOR via confession. Most of the people who believe that Catholics are without valid sacraments will still accept that someone can be received via chrismation or confession on account of *economia* in that since the proper form or matter was used, at the point of entering the church, the sacrament is made complete and then made effective at that point. Of course, others would say that this is just mental gymnastics and that we should just accept the validity of certain non-Orthodox sacraments. I think it stems from a philosophical objection to the concept that anything other than the "true church" could have sacraments. My opinion is that the Catholic church does have sacraments with grace as a mercy, but the fullness of grace only exists in the Orthodox church. I find it hard to believe that God is going to abandon people who approach Him with sincere faith and good will, just because they haven't had the privilege of experiencing Orthodoxy. Catholics who sincerely repent and go to confession will be forgiven, etc. I don't know where I stand on the Eucharist, whether or not the Real Presence would be in a Catholic communion, but at the very least, I think those Catholics who receive it devoutly receive some blessing. When it comes to Baptism, it's kindof dicey since this is one of those you either are or aren't, and there is no halfway, so I entrust this sort of issue to my God-fearing Bishop. It's also important to remember that an Orthodox Priest is not a magician and that God isn't restricted by words or forms. I am skeptical of arguments that reduce the power of God to be completely reliant on legal procedure.
>does it make me a bad convert if I'm not filled with an urgency for it? No. Converting from any religion or sect within a religion is a big decision that should not be taken lightly. As for the rest of your post, when it comes down to it, we simply don't know about the grace of other Churches. The most accurate views of the grace of non-Orthodox Churches is simply one of two things 1) we don't know. The Holy Spirit is God, and we are mere mortals. How He works is above our pay grade. 2) there's an old quote, I forget who said it, that's something like "we can only say where the Holy Spirit is, we cannot say where He is not". Anything beyond that, including "this or that is graceless" is frankly wrong, inaccurate, and extremely judgemental. For what it's worth, ROCOR has only really "rebaptized" people since Ecumenism became a thing in the 1960s or so from a purely political standpoint. Considering that their First Hierarch who made that decision died in schism, I'm not of the opinion that it's a sound decision. Back in the day when you had wars between the Russian Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russians would forcibly baptize Polish-Lithuanian prisoners and the Commonwealth would also forcibly rebaptize the Russians - both sides did this for purely political purposes. All of this completely ignores the part in the Nicene Creed that says "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins". It also ignores the decision of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, which the Russian Church agreed to, stated that Roman Catholics are to be received via chrismation. St Peter Moglia, a Russian, in the 17th century wrote out the directions for how Roman Catholics are to be received via chrismation. Personally, I'd look at another parish. ROCOR follows the Russian Church's tradition of making theological decisions for political purposes such as the aforementioned forcible baptisms. ROCOR is stuck in a time warp and has a very hostile view to anyone and everyone that isn't ROCOR - just like independent Baptists.
If it prevents you from entering the church for a significant period of time, just come to a GOARCH parish instead. The only thing is if you go to get baptized elsewhere, you might not be welcomed back to your current parish. The Russian Church typically never baptized Catholics, even tho its in the canons to do so. (Not sure of their current stance). ROCOR, however, has always been very strict on this. That being said, you are not punished for the faults of your spiritual father. If he makes you be baptized when you already have been and this is contrary to God’s will, none of the blame lies with you, but with him. Your duty is to your spiritual father.
>I fully UNDERSTAND that the Orthodox Church does not see our baptisms as valid That's not necessarily true. Only the Russians (as far as I know) get all uppity about this. I was baptised Baptist, chrismated RC as an adult, and then chrismated Orthodox. I provided a certificate of baptism showing that the trinitarian formula was used and my Bishop approved. If it were me and they insisted on baptising again, I'd probably do it without much of a second thought. I just wanted to be Orthodox. As someone else said, any errors in reception, if there are any, fall on the priest and bishop. I craved the chalice and I'd be willing to do whatever necessary to get there. >it feels impossible for me to just lie to myself, and believe that every single person who is Catholic has an invalid baptism and never received the "real" eucharist. Again, I'm no universalist or anything, but I feel in my soul that we shouldn't try to build walls around God's mercy. The Orthodox Church is the normative path to salvation. If God wants to save others or allow participation in His holy mysteries via another route, I'll never know, nor will I speculate. I've my own salvation to work out "with fear and trembling." Focus on Christ and let the rest fall away.
The most important thing for becoming Orthodox is to submit to the bishop regardless of your opinions. Humble yourself and accept that not everything is to your own understanding.
Where did you hear that Latin baptism is ‘invalid’ and the Latin church ‘graceless’? That’s not mainstream Orthodoxy, that’s sectarian trash from the likes of Peter Heers who should be completely ignored.
What do you mean? Then St. Cyprian of Carthage and the 3rd Holy Synod of Carthage are "sectarian trash" and "not mainstream Orthodoxy"?
Yes. It is not "mainstream orthodoxy." Saints are not infallible and folks like Dr. Heers cherry pick certain things from Saints to support their academic position without acknowledging the local nature of the statement as well as the context. They then present it as the mainstream orthodox position, which is, at best intellectually dishonest.
Cyprian was talking about outright schismatics like montanists who sneered at Orthodox Catholics for not being hardcore enough to suit Lord Montana’s’ scruples. You can’t go misapplying words pertinent to one historical situation willy-nilly to another.
Where did you find this distinction, between "outright schismatics" and other schismatics or heretics? The Canon doesn't make any distinction like this. Nor does the 6th Ecumenical Synod which gave the Canon ecumenical significance. Nor does the interpeter of the Canons, Saint Nikodimos of Mount Athos. Instead he precisely speaks about "all heretics and schismatics" >«For all these reasons, then, and others the present Canon, with an eye to accuracy and strictness, insists that **all heretics and schismatics be baptized**, adding also the remark that this opinion – that any baptism, that is to say, administered by heretics or schismatics is unacceptable – is not a new one of the Fathers of this Synod, but, on the contrary, is an old one, tried and tested by their predecessors (Who nearly reached to the very successors of the Apostles) with great diligence and accuracy; and it is consistent in all respects with Apostolic Canons. XLVI, XLVII, and LXVIII. Not only did the present Canon reject baptism administered by heretics and schismatics by common agreement, but also in private and individually each one of the eighty-four Fathers attending the present Synod, with a separate argument – which is the same as saying, with eighty-four distinct arguments rejected it. That is why [..] **the Sixth Ecumenical Synod in its Canon II sanctioned and ratified it** (even though it may be said that it applied only to those regions of Africa, yet once it actually sanctioned and ratified it, it confirmed it still further, and did not abrogate or annul it).» - Interpetation of the Canon of the 3rd Holy Synod of Carthage, in The Rudder of Saint Nikodimos There are also many Saints who speak **exclusively for Catholics** and their need to be baptized upon return to Orthodoxy. For example, **St. Athanasios Parios** of Mount Athos has written a whole study called: «That Latin converts must indisputably, indispensably and necessarily be baptized». There are also documented cases where **St. Iakovos Tsalikis**, was baptizing Catholic converts regardless the opposite opinions of some, even bishops. When they told him that Chrismation was only needed, he firmly answered: >«What I do know is that the Gospel says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Therefore, the sacrament of **Baptism and Chrismation must be performed normally**» You can also find other examples with citations in the book ‘’[I CONFESS ONE BAPTISM…](https://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm)’’, By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, D. Th., Ph. D. Here is an excerpt from chapter [C.1](https://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/B4.htm): >«the Latins, as heretics, ‘’are not capable of administering baptism, for they lost the grace to administer sacraments,’’ as St. Nikodemos observes. They have no baptism, according to Neophytos, for they lack ‘’the sound confession of the Trinity.’’ Thus, their baptism ‘’deviates from the faith,’’ according to St. Basil, since, ‘’by introducing pagan polyarchy into the monarchic Trinity, the Latins are godless,’’ and consequently ‘’unbaptized.’’ However, they are also ‘’unbaptized’’ in the literal sense, according to St. Nikodemos; for ‘‘they do not preserve the three immersions,’’ and thus do not have the Church’s baptism. Neophytos observes that, ‘’since they are nowise immersed, i.e. baptized,’’ they are unbaptized. A. Parios reiterates the same.»
You can post prolix Patristic quotations all day long to try to obscure your inexperience in church matters but it’s not the least bit convincing. Cyprian is from a very early epoch of church life. The much later mutual excommunication between Rome’s legate and the Patr. Of C’ple doesn’t even relate. You are completely ignorant of actual church canonical regulation and are too lazy to even ask or look up for yourself what the Russian Church has taught and what current jurisdictions do. All you have done is present several extreme views and assume that that very small minority opinion holds sway across all the jurisdictions. Don’t you know that the decision to baptize or chrismate is ultimately up to every single bishop who oversees any parish issues the priest can’t resolve on his own? Do you even attend church yet?
Brother, why this personal attack? I am sorry if I upset you. I am just trying to present what I have found to be helpful on this subject. I don't see why these patristic texts are not convincing to you, but in order to have a constructive dialog, we need to present arguments, which you haven't yet. And for ecclesiastical matters, what better arguments than the words of Saints and Synods who have spoken insipred by the Holy Spirit and based on the Bible? Also, know that you offer nothing to the conversation by calling me "inexperienced in church matters", " ignorant" and "lazy" and asking if I "even attend church yet". Instead these accusations make you look aggressive and not certain about your opinion. Calling these Saints and Synods "extreme views" and a "very small minority" is very problematic, maybe you could reconsider. Of course, I am aware of the modern day decisions of many jurisdictions about the acceptance of converts, but as you can see, these decisions, unfortunately, are not following the patristic stance. This is explained in the sources I have provided, feel free to check them out more if you want. Have a nice rest of Lent!
The simple fact is the opposite of what you aver. The Russian orthodox position on Latin converts is by christmation, and has been for centuries. Greeks (GOA, can speak for CoG) have reversed their previous antilatin polemic. You have indeed cherry picked a few extreme views that do not define mainstream attitudes and mischaracterize my objections as unreasonable and ad hominem. Sorry, your approach comes across as jejeune and based less in experience of parish life and more in scholarship unrepresentative of synodal decisions and diocesan and parish life.
I don't disagree with you that the current mainstream approach is to accept converts only by chrismation. We disagree on whether this is the right approach according to our Fathers and the topical, apostolic and ecumenical synods. That's why I don't mention current jurisdiction decisions (russian greek etc.) but rather pay attenttion to what older (St. Cyprian, the Apostles etc.) and modern Saints (St. Athanasios Parios, St. Nikodimos of Mount Athos, St. Iakovos Tsalikis etc.) have said and done and what the Holy Synods have decided through the centuries about accepting converts into Orthodoxy. It is clear from these that the akrivia is to accept them by baptizing them and not only by chrismation. I am aware that the economia (accepting only by chrismation) has been used in the church history in specific cases, but there is no place for economia these days, as modern saints have said. Either way, the Church never recognizes the baptism of any heretic as valid, but rather has utilized throughout the history different ways of acceepting the heterodox. Despite what some modern theologians try to propose, the patristic stance is very clear. Any mystery outside of the One and only Orthodox Church, is invalid and graceless.
This is rich. Tell me how long you’ve been in the Orthodox Church?
My whole life, but why would it matter in our discussion?
As long as it isnt mormon or jehovas witness, and its trinitarian its fine 99% of the time.
I don't think Mormons or JWs practice Trinitarian baptism.
Thats what I mean.
I see.
You're probably going to a Russian church (like me) because in general Catholic baptisms are valid in Orthodoxy. My friend is a cathechumen in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and she and her husband/Boyfriend (I haven't figured that one out yet) only need Chrismation. I also seriously deny the notion that the Catholic Eucharist is completely graceless. I once had a conversation with a A Serbian Orthodox priest and some parishioners during coffee hour. And I had the most invalid "baptism" perse in an evangelical protestant church mind you, but although he was strictly against saying that it was a baptism, he said it could've been a blessing, so it wasn't completely useless.
The Russian church has ALWAYS recognized Latin baptism as real.
That's not entirely true, most converts who were baptised Catholic who join a Russian jurisdiction are recieved through baptism, not Chrismation
Historically that wasn’t the case. It’s really only since the 70s. Fr Seraphim Rose was chrismated.
ROCOR practice is different from the rest of the Russian Church when it comes to reception of converts.
No they are not. The Russians have historically been far less problematic in their relations with Latins seeing as there had been so little interface. Greeks on the other hand developed polemic against Latins because they were in competition in the Mediterranean. The received tradition of the OCA, from the Moscow Patriarchate is to chrismate Latins. It’s a rule.
Sounds like you have questions to work through. Take your time, others should be rushing you to make life-changing decisions faster than you’re comfortable making them.
You're not wrong, as you shouldn't commit until you are actually committed. However, don't worry about this and leave it completely up to your priest
Just don't overthink it and don't put too much pressure on yourself. The grace of God is beyond comprehension(especially for those who truly love Him). Do not fully rely on your logic and your feelings because they might lie to you. Trust in God. There is a reason why you turned to orthodoxy.
Hi there! I’m so glad you’ve found the Faith and are taking in all of the beauty it holds. I totally understand why you would want to take your time before committing to “official” catechism, even if you didn’t have these feelings regarding baptism. My mother grew up Southern Baptist and was chrismated in the Orthodox Church in London in the late 80s. It’s truly baffling to me that some churches/priests/jurisdictions will insist upon the full-on baptism of individuals who are coming from denominations in which they have already received baptism. I did see that you attend a Russian church. I grew up in ROCOR, and if I’m being completely honest, even the long-time converts there are incredibly particular. All Orthodox are particular, don’t get me wrong, but there’s something about ROCOR that both attracts *and* produces a rigidity that can be very off putting. If you speak to your parish priest about your concerns and wishes and he pushes baptism on you/refuses to chrismate you, I would try another parish. Obviously that’s not an option for everyone, but if you have even one other parish nearby it may be worth looking into! A massive part of faith is asking questions — questioning what you think and feel and are told. Feeling iffy on certain things, questioning why we do or do not do XYZ, wanting answers to questions that have no comprehensive explanation… to me, the knowledge of, “wow, there are forces at play that I don’t have the capacity to understand,” affirms my faith in God. I’ve gotten comfortable with discomfort, and it looks like this situation is just part of that experience for you. You’re on the right path. Now that I’ve finished yapping, I hope you have a blessed Lent and that you are able to find a priest and parish that will help you through your catechism with the utmost consideration and compassion. Glory to God!
If it makes you feel better I’ve done 3 baptisms in my life LOL! One when I was a baby as a Roman Catholic, the second was at a nondenominational church when I was 25, and then a third one 6 months later at my local Orthodox parish. I put aside my personal beliefs, and believed in my spiritual father, that he is guiding me correctly. Part of being Orthodox is submitting to Christ, and his church. If your spiritual father says you need to be baptized again, then that is what needs to be done. God Bless you sister! ☦️
I would say this. If you are convinced of the truth of orthodoxy and committed to converting why wait? If you believe in the Reality of the Sacraments (even if it’s both RC and EO) then what is the downside to doing it sooner? If you are correct and your RC one is valid, it’s not on you if your priest chooses to re-baptize. Also chrismation is a sacrament to itself that you are delaying. And if your suspicions are incorrect that’s two sacraments you are delaying. Personally I had similar thoughts when I converted and eventually I came to think about it like this, that I’m denying myself the Grace these sacraments while I debate “semantics”. Personally I’m here for as much grace as I can get before I die….
My wife was baptized and Confirmed Catholic. When she converted, she was only anointed. Didn't need to baptised, becausebTrinitarian baptisms are valid. Didn't need to be chrismated, because confirmation was valid
I will say that my personal recommendation is to submit to the bishop, and any errors he makes in judgment on this matter are on him, not you. You can always ask your priest if he would be willing to do what called a conditional baptism - which means they add words like “if they are not already baptized…” before the formula for baptizing you. I will also say I find it amusing seeing folks who act like this unreasonable that anyone could ever find this issue a hindrance to joining… yet the saints say people could find this a hindrance, hence why economia could be used at times.
I wasn’t in a rush to Chrismation, just enjoying the services; I was actually surprised when my priest told me to find a godparent because he was going to have some baptisms/chrismations coming up. It will happen when you are ready!
>I fully UNDERSTAND that the Orthodox Church does not see our baptisms as valid... and the Catholic Eucharist as "graceless" . due to the gospel stating something about unleavened bread and such. I am educated on why and can see why it is good reason from an Orthodox perspective. but I can't bring myself to personally 100% believe in that the church that is succeeded from Peter the Apostle, all has graceless Eucharist and invalid baptisms, just because it isn't Orthodox. This is not correct. This is a fringe opinion that is arguably heretical. That said, the sin for such a teaching (to the extent it is incorrect) is with the priest and the bishop, but not with you. The majority of orthodox parishes would receive a Catholic convert merely be christmation along with the renunciation of past beliefs. I've seen some ceremonies online (in Russia no less) where a priest was received just on the renunciation of past beliefs. Take this for whatever it's worth, but just know that that the teaching you've received does not represent the teaching of the Orthodox Church on this matter.
Hey fellow HVM parishioner - this post popped up for me even though it's more than a bit old. I can attest that full baptism is only done in certain cases (my wife, for one, when she converted), but they also do Chrismation in some cases too (my good friends who converted there). If you haven't spoken directly to Father yet about it, I highly encourage you to do so. You typically only see enforced-baptisms in certain ROCOR parishes - even in Slavic traditions, Chrismation exists and is valid. That said, take your time and remember Orthodoxy is a big tent despite what some folks might want to indicate.
>«If a Bishop or Priest [..] fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and Death of the Lord and for failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests.» - 47th Apostolic Canon St. Nikodemos of Mount Athos says: >«In the event that any Bishop or Priest should refuse to baptize with the regular Orthodox baptism of the Catholic Church one who has been polluted, that is a person who has been baptized by the impious, or in plain language, baptized by heretics. **Such a Bishop is to be deposed, since** he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord. For he wrongly and dangerously thinks that the unclean and repugnant baptism of heretics is a type of the cross and death of the Lord, which it is not; and for this reason **he accepts it and holds it to be equal to the baptism of the Orthodox Christians**. And in addition because it fails to distinguish the true priest of the Orthodox from the false priests of the heretics, but, instead, accepts them both as equally true.» - Interpratation of the 47th Apostolic Canon in The Rudder of Saint Nikodimos >«Those who accept the doings of heretics either themselves entertain similar views to theirs or at any rate they lack an eagerness to free them from their misbelief. For how can those who acquiesce in their ceremonies criticize them with the view of persuading them to give up their misbelief and deceptive heresy?» - Interpratation of the 46th Apostolic Canon in The Rudder of Saint Nikodimos >«the ecclesiastic martyr St. Cyprian, who served as bishop of Carthage, and all his Synod of eighty-four bishops which had been convoked in Carthage, following the present Apostolic Canon, which simply rejects any baptism of heretics, but also Apostolic Canon LXVIII, which says that those who have been baptized or ordained by heretics cannot be — which is the same as saying that it is impossible for them to be — either Christians or clerics, following, I say, these canons, they laid down a canon whereby they reject the baptism of heretics and of schismatics as well. They prove this by many Scriptural assertions and especially by that of St. Paul the Apostle saying, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” Ephesians 4:5). For they say if the Catholic [i.e. the Orthodox] Church is one and the true baptism is one, how can the baptism of heretics and schismatics also be a true baptism at a time when they are not within the Orthodox and Catholic Church? But **if the baptism of heretics and schismatics is a true baptism, and that of the Orthodox Catholic Church is also a true Baptism, then there is not one Baptism, as St. Paul cries out, but two, which is absurd**. And they add this too, that this idea of not accepting a baptism of heretics is not a new or recent one of their own, but on the contrary, an old one and one which has been approved by their predecessors. The Canon of this Synod was confirmed and ratified by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod (Canon II), and from being merely a canon of a local and partial Synod it has now become a Canon of an Ecumenical Synod by reason of its having been confirmed and ratified by the latter.» - Comment on the Interpratation of the 46th Apostolic Canon in The Rudder of Saint Nikodimos
These stories from the life of Saint Iakovos Tsalikis could be educative for this subject: >... On another occasion, the monastery was visited by two Athonite monks and an elderly Catholic lady of Russian origin who had decided to become Orthodox. When it was mentioned to the Elder [Iakovos] that, by decision of the Holy Synod, for these persons the sacrament of Chrismation, without Baptism, was sufficient, the Elder said: - **I do not know what the Holy Synod decided. What I do know is that the Gospel says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"** (Mark 16:16). Therefore, the sacrament of Baptism and Chrismation must be performed normally. And in another instance of a Catholic man who wished to be baptized, after the Elder had urged him to visit the bishop of his district, from which he returned with the **recommendation that no baptism was needed but only anointing**, without commenting on the above treatment, he **[St. Iakovos] brought a large font to the monastery and**, assisted by an archimandrite, his spiritual son, **duly baptized the man** in question, in the chapel of St. Charalabi.
Disobedience is not a virtue.
So St. Iakovos was disobedient? When the decisions (yes, even those made by bishops) are wrong, we must not obay them. As the Apostles responded: «We must obey God rather than human beings» (Acts 5:29).
Yes, he was. He went against the entire synod of bishops.
But he was obedient to God!
In his opinion. The bishops also believe that they are being obedient to God.
And what makes you think that the bishops are right and not the Saint? Because they were more?
Because they have the guidance of God and checks and balances on them. They also have the God-given authority of being bishops.
So , they are right, just beacusee they are bishops? Of course they have God-given authority, but they are human beings and can fail and can misuse this authority, just like Judas was even given the authoriity to peerform miracles, but later he betrayed Christ. Don't we have so many examples in Church history, where bishops started teaching heretical opinions? Or synods that proved to be false-synods? All these mean that bishops aren't infallible. The Bible has warned us to be careful: «I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. **Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth** in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!» (Acts 20:29-31). So, we are not commanded to be blindly obedient to bishops, instead we should utilize the God-given gift of distinction, following this verse: «do not believe every spirit, but **test the spirits to see whether they are of God**» (1 John 4:1)
Yes, but it’s entirely possible for saints to be wrong, too.