Do EO churches recognise OO baptisms ?

[InnerPhyre]

what position did i put forth?

which monks on Mt. Athos would you call the most zealous? are you sure all the monasteries aren't practicing the same?

can you quote any Holy Synod which has said that reception by economia is a recognition that non-Orthodox baptisms are baptisms just as Orthodox baptisms are baptisms?

We didn't rebaptize Arians....the worst of heretics. I didn't say that they are Orthodox baptisms. I did say they are baptisms and that receiving them by Chrismation completes whatever might be lacking by uniting them to the Church.

wishy-washy answers turn people away too. people never stop to consider that though, do they?

Strong medicine for those who need it and weak for those who would be hurt by the strong.

 

[jckstraw72]

We didn't rebaptize Arians....the worst of heretics.

1. this doesn't answer any of my questions.

2. There was no separate Arian hierarchy. There were hierarchs within the Church who confessed wrongly.

3. we know that the Canons allow economia, not that they demand it. there are not a few prominent scholars today who believe that these canons are putting forth allowable economia -- baptism didn't need to be specifically put in the canons - it was the obvious norm.

I didn't say that they are Orthodox baptisms. I did say they are baptisms and that receiving them by Chrismation completes whatever might be lacking by uniting them to the Church.

and what position did i put forth?

 

[jckstraw72]

Strong medicine for those who need it and weak for those who would be hurt by the strong.

and with this true principle, people often confuse weak medicine with false medicine. telling someone that their non-Orthodox baptism is every bit as efficacious and therapeutic as an Orthodox baptism is not weak medicine. its poison. reception by economia is weak medicine, its not a proclamation of the aforesaid poison.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well if these folks aren't truly baptized, my priest and thousands of other Orthodox priests are abusing their authority and being irresponsible and inept by not rebaptizing. And my priest went out of his way telling me NOT to re-confess previously forgiven sins. So, there he went again with the abuse. Chrismation is the method of reception far more than re-baptizing followed by chrismation it seems these days.

for the record, i never said he's not a Christian. i asked some meant-to-be thought provoking questions.

is there a text from any Holy Synod that says that reception by economia equates to a recognition of the sacraments of the non-Orthodox?

 

[truefiction1]

The is no perfect consensus within Eastern Orthodox Christianity regarding how other Christians are to be received. The actual practice varies from one jurisdiction to another, and even within the same jurisdictions. There is also no consensus regarding the question as to whether or not Trinitarian baptisms practiced by those outside the Church are valid. Throughout large periods in the history of the Church, converts were received without being rebaptized (even Arians). Arguing that Orthodox baptism was foregone due to the application of "oikonomeia" basically results in defining oikonomeia as, what Florovsky aptly termed "systematic contrivance". The logical conclusion of this approach is that baptism is a thing that we can dispense with. This, of course would be a bad teaching for obvious reasons, so we must conclude that the Church (while not overtly stating it) generally sees heretic baptisms as being somehow valid. The more radical elements within the Church will disagree, just as they disagree with ecumenism.

 

[jckstraw72]

gurney, it's clear you are not understanding what i'm saying.

i did not say that reception by economia is wrong. i said that such reception does not equate to a proclamation that heterodox and Orthodox baptisms are equal. that is the blatantly false interpretation that many come to, though.the fact that its called economia demonstrates exactly what i'm saying - there exists a stricter practice. if non-Orthodox baptisms were true baptisms just as Orthodox baptisms are then we would NEVER baptize Christian converts into the Orthodox faith. all would be received by Chrismation and this would be known as akrivia and to baptize them in would in fact be a sin.

but then again, how do the heterodox have true baptisms, but not true Chrismation/Confirmation ...? why is it not "radical" to Chrismate a Catholic?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I understand, jck. Thanks, brother, for the elaboration. I see what you mean.

gurney, it's clear you are not understanding what i'm saying.

i did not say that reception by economia is wrong. i said that such reception does not equate to a proclamation that heterodox and Orthodox baptisms are equal. that is the blatantly false interpretation that many come to, though.the fact that its called economia demonstrates exactly what i'm saying - there exists a stricter practice. if non-Orthodox baptisms were true baptisms just as Orthodox baptisms are then we would NEVER baptize Christian converts into the Orthodox faith. all would be received by Chrismation and this would be known as akrivia and to baptize them in would in fact be a sin.

but then again, how do the heterodox have true baptisms, but not true Chrismation/Confirmation ...? why is it not "radical" to Chrismate a Catholic?

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Because I'm considering Orthodoxy, so in that context, the opinion of Orthodox of my status matters.

But that's just it - why?

You're considering Orthodoxy. Why does what Orthodoxy say about what you used to do (which actually amounts to not much. That is, Orthodoxy says very little to nothing about other communions) matter? You're not taking alternative points of view on their own merit, but judging them by your old perspective, which, as I said, is like judging whether or not my old family was really a family at all by asking an entirely different family what its perspective is on my family. Since the only reason I would be doing that is to question whether my old family is really a family, or my true family, why does it matter if they say the old one wasn't? (and Orthodoxy doesn't even go that far, it avoids the question entirely, really)

Just so I'm clear: To me, your situation is like the following.

Me: "I wonder if my family is the family started by my grandfather? I think the Johnsons over there might be his true family. I'll ask them how they judge that they're Grandpa's family." I go ask.
Their Response: "We believe that this is Grandpa's family, but you're welcome to join us. All you have to do is eat some of his famous farmhouse chile, he passed the recipe on to us."
Me: "But do you believe I was really a member of the family before? Before I join your family, I need to make sure that you think my family was the true family too."
Them: "Why are you looking at joining our family if you believe that was the true family? If you're going to join our family, why do you care if we disagree with your old family? Why do you care how much we disagree?"
Me: "But I want you to confirm what you think about my old family."
Them: "Why does it matter what we think about your old family? If you're looking for a new one, why are you so determined that the new one must confirm that the old one was 'valid'?

And round and round we go. Your stance only makes sense, to me, if you want to have your cake and eat it to. Why are you looking for a new family that confirms your old family? It's an entirely new family that can only judge itself, and if you're looking at a new one, don't you yourself find something lacking in your old one? What's wrong with us agreeing with you?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not to speak for Tallguy, but I think this line of thinking is related to the relevance of Christianity for others. By that I mean, take my example. My parents are still Catholic. My grandma, memory eternal, died in 2010, and died a Catholic. It's not a pleasant thought that they have an illegitimate or non-existent baptism and are lost souls wasting their time. I know your parents are Protestants and your sisters, etc. We all hope that our loved ones have some kind of relationship with God in baptism. Perhaps Tallguy just wants the sense that he is upping the ante to God, climbing to a higher hill, the top of the mountain now, but his many years as a Catholic weren't for nothing, weren't empty or unbaptized. It might be his perception? I don't know. But I don't think your cake and eat it, too angle is what he's saying?

But that's just it - why?

You're considering Orthodoxy. Why does what Orthodoxy say about what you used to do (which actually amounts to not much. That is, Orthodoxy says very little to nothing about other communions) matter? You're not taking alternative points of view on their own merit, but judging them by your old perspective, which, as I said, is like judging whether or not my old family was really a family at all by asking an entirely different family what its perspective is on my family. Since the only reason I would be doing that is to question whether my old family is really a family, or my true family, why does it matter if they say the old one wasn't? (and Orthodoxy doesn't even go that far, it avoids the question entirely, really)

Just so I'm clear: To me, your situation is like the following.

Me: "I wonder if my family is the family started by my grandfather? I think the Johnsons over there might be his true family. I'll ask them how they judge that they're Grandpa's family." I go ask.
Their Response: "We believe that this is Grandpa's family, but you're welcome to join us. All you have to do is eat some of his famous farmhouse chile, he passed the recipe on to us."
Me: "But do you believe I was really a member of the family before? Before I join your family, I need to make sure that you think my family was the true family too."
Them: "Why are you looking at joining our family if you believe that was the true family? If you're going to join our family, why do you care if we disagree with your old family? Why do you care how much we disagree?"
Me: "But I want you to confirm what you think about my old family."
Them: "Why does it matter what we think about your old family? If you're looking for a new one, why are you so determined that the new one must confirm that the old one was 'valid'?

And round and round we go. Your stance only makes sense, to me, if you want to have your cake and eat it to. Why are you looking for a new family that confirms your old family? It's an entirely new family that can only judge itself, and if you're looking at a new one, don't you yourself find something lacking in your old one? What's wrong with us agreeing with you?

 

[Cappadocious]

Where does Trullo 95 mention "oikonomia" for that matter? It just says what it says without mention of concessions to weakness or whatever.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Not to speak for Tallguy, but I think this line of thinking is related to the relevance of Christianity for others. By that I mean, take my example. My parents are still Catholic. My grandma, memory eternal, died in 2010, and died a Catholic. It's not a pleasant thought that they have an illegitimate or non-existent baptism and are lost souls wasting their time. I know your parents are Protestants and your sisters, etc. We all hope that our loved ones have some kind of relationship with God in baptism. Perhaps Tallguy just wants the sense that he is upping the ante to God, climbing to a higher hill, the top of the mountain now, but his many years as a Catholic weren't for nothing, weren't empty or unbaptized. It might be his perception? I don't know. But I don't think your cake and eat it, too angle is what he's saying?

Oooh, y'know, didn't even consider the relatives who aren't Orthodox angle. I can kind of get that. It's very, very different from my perspective of Truth and the personality of God, so I didn't go there, but I can see how that would influence someone. That kind of makes sense.

 

[Shane R]

All of this debate is ignoring that baptism, at its most mystical level, is really accomplished by God. Thus the conversation has traditionally revolved around whether God was invoked through the sacrament (whichever sacrament it be). I was reading St. Basil yesterday in a section where he spoke strongly against those who baptize in the name of the Father only. In such a case God was not invoked in trinity, as God really is.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But Tallguy is Catholic, so his baptism wasn't in the name of the Father only?

All of this debate is ignoring that baptism, at its most mystical level, is really accomplished by God. Thus the conversation has traditionally revolved around whether God was invoked through the sacrament (whichever sacrament it be). I was reading St. Basil yesterday in a section where he spoke strongly against those who baptize in the name of the Father only. In such a case God was not invoked in trinity, as God really is.

 

[truefiction1]

Where does Trullo 95 mention "oikonomia" for that matter? It just says what it says without mention of concessions to weakness or whatever.

Exactly.

 

[jckstraw72]

Exactly.

i can give you the email of a priest who finished his PhD at Thessaloniki which very much involved all of this, if you are interested in hearing what he has to say. PM me if you want.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Because I'm considering Orthodoxy, so in that context, the opinion of Orthodox of my status matters. Certain posters here have made it quite clear that my baptism is insufficient/deficient/not real/false.

well, you should talk to your priest. asking us about your baptismal status is asking something that God alone knows. your best bet is to talk to him and do what he says. it would probably be by chrismation to fill whatever is lacking (if anything). and just to throw out a point, jckstraw is, as I am sure many know, a huge venerator of Fr Seraphim Rose, who was received by chrismation.

 

[Tallguy88]

well, you should talk to your priest. asking us about your baptismal status is asking something that God alone knows. your best bet is to talk to him and do what he says. it would probably be by chrismation to fill whatever is lacking (if anything). and just to throw out a point, jckstraw is, as I am sure many know, a huge venerator of Fr Seraphim Rose, who was received by chrismation.

I haven't spoken to him at length about the topic, but I would indeed be received by Charismation only, being already Baptized.

 

[Tallguy88]

But Tallguy is Catholic, so his baptism wasn't in the name of the Father only?

"Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".

 

[ArmyMatt]

I haven't spoken to him at length about the topic, but I would indeed be received by Charismation only, being already Baptized.

good, then you know how you are viewed by us Orthodox. there be your answer.

 

[Tallguy88]

Not to speak for Tallguy, but I think this line of thinking is related to the relevance of Christianity for others. By that I mean, take my example. My parents are still Catholic. My grandma, memory eternal, died in 2010, and died a Catholic. It's not a pleasant thought that they have an illegitimate or non-existent baptism and are lost souls wasting their time. I know your parents are Protestants and your sisters, etc. We all hope that our loved ones have some kind of relationship with God in baptism. Perhaps Tallguy just wants the sense that he is upping the ante to God, climbing to a higher hill, the top of the mountain now, but his many years as a Catholic weren't for nothing, weren't empty or unbaptized. It might be his perception? I don't know. But I don't think your cake and eat it, too angle is what he's saying?

Most of my family are Protestant, so that adds another layer to the conversation. The RCC is very clear, however, that my Protestant family are validly Baptized Christians, while being separated from full communion with the Catholic Church.

I know that I'm not a very good Christian. I don't go to church (RCC or Orthodox) nearly as often as I should, I'm doing good if I manage once a month. But one thing that I can hold on to is the knowledge that I'm a Baptized Christian. The thought that all my struggling, prayer, belief, etc up to becoming "officially" Orthodox will have been wasted is very disheartening.