Do EO churches recognise OO baptisms ?

[ArmyMatt]

it's nothing to fret over. this debate is an old one. believe me everyone here will be rejoicing when you come home to the Orthodox Church.

 

[Tallguy88]

it's nothing to fret over. this debate is an old one. believe me everyone here will be rejoicing when you come home to the Orthodox Church.

Thanks.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

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.

There are Icons that have pagan philosophers in them (without halos). Orthodoxy views life as a journey, and in a journey every step is the culmination of all the steps that came before it.

Before I was Orthodox I was Roman Catholic. Before Roman Catholicism I was Protestant. As a Roman Catholic I knew that I only came to that church because of the lessons I was taught as a Protestant, but that I also needed more than what Protestantism could offer. There was something that needed to be fulfilled. That doesn't negate what came before - it exalts it as being in the right direction, steps taken that got me to where I needed to go, and it was the path that was shown to me at the time. God is under no obligation to show us the destination, but even outside The Church we can seek Him and He will answer. The Spirit blows where He will. I believe I was supposed to be Roman Catholic for a time, and I believe my parents needed to be Protestant (and thus raised me Protestant.) Heck, I know what type of person I would've been if I had been raised Roman Catholic and it wouldn't have been pretty, so I needed to be Protestant too. God works as He needs to when dealing with us. I often think it must give Him headaches.

My movement from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy was the same. I've since had some harsh experiences with Roman Catholics that have soured me (if you ever hear any tone from me, it's because of that, and I'm sorry. I need to get over it).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear ya! The only weird thing with my journey is that I've had WAY more lousy situations with Orthodox Christians (mostly clergy!) since going East than I even did as a Catholic! If I went by experience, I'd definitely NOT be Orthodox right now! I just have to plug my ears sometimes or try to have intentional amnesia with some of the lousy experiences! And I'd say the same thing to anyone considering a conversion. Orthodoxy has just as many egomaniacs, control freaks, cultish folks, legalists, and weirdos as Catholicism or Protestantism. If we just go by experiences, heck, I'd probably be Anglican still !

There are Icons that have pagan philosophers in them (without halos). Orthodoxy views life as a journey, and in a journey every step is the culmination of all the steps that came before it.

Before I was Orthodox I was Roman Catholic. Before Roman Catholicism I was Protestant. As a Roman Catholic I knew that I only came to that church because of the lessons I was taught as a Protestant, but that I also needed more than what Protestantism could offer. There was something that needed to be fulfilled. That doesn't negate what came before - it exalts it as being in the right direction, steps taken that got me to where I needed to go, and it was the path that was shown to me at the time. God is under no obligation to show us the destination, but even outside The Church we can seek Him and He will answer. The Spirit blows where He will. I believe I was supposed to be Roman Catholic for a time, and I believe my parents needed to be Protestant (and thus raised me Protestant.) Heck, I know what type of person I would've been if I had been raised Roman Catholic and it wouldn't have been pretty, so I needed to be Protestant too. God works as He needs to when dealing with us. I often think it must give Him headaches.

My movement from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy was the same. I've since had some harsh experiences with Roman Catholics that have soured me (if you ever hear any tone from me, it's because of that, and I'm sorry. I need to get over it).

 

[jckstraw72]

here's something interesting:

On this topic of oikonomia, what would be your take on the notion that empty forms of the properly performed baptism are filled with grace at the moment of reception in any mode of the reception? So if you are receiving a priest through repentance, the Church is able to grant through this act whatever is needed for his ministry, without recognizing his baptism. That’s another interpretation of sacramental oikonomia.

Met. Kallistos Ware: Yes, I am aware indeed of this particular explanation. I am not very content with this. I feel that oikonomia can be used to permit a departure from the strict rules of the Church, but it cannot be used to make something exist which did not previously exist.
Now a typical example that I would give of a justified use of oikonomia which is not controversial, is that the canons say that a deacon should not be ordained under the age of twenty-five, or a priest under the age of thirty. In practice, in all Orthodox Churches people are ordained earlier than these dates. That, I think, does not raise any controversial issue. It is a relaxation of the rules. But to say that a person who has been unbaptized, who has received an external ceremony of baptism, but has not been baptized, that somehow his baptism could be made to exist by economy through the use of chrismation — that I find quite difficult. I don’t think economy can be used to justify creating something that did not previously exist. I would probably write this in my introduction.

http://www.rocorstudies.org/intervi...turgical-tradition-is-very-much-needed-today/

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, nobody will ever accuse you, jck, of being in the moderate party of the Orthodox Church!

here's something interesting:

On this topic of oikonomia, what would be your take on the notion that empty forms of the properly performed baptism are filled with grace at the moment of reception in any mode of the reception? So if you are receiving a priest through repentance, the Church is able to grant through this act whatever is needed for his ministry, without recognizing his baptism. That’s another interpretation of sacramental oikonomia.

Met. Kallistos Ware: Yes, I am aware indeed of this particular explanation. I am not very content with this. I feel that oikonomia can be used to permit a departure from the strict rules of the Church, but it cannot be used to make something exist which did not previously exist.
Now a typical example that I would give of a justified use of oikonomia which is not controversial, is that the canons say that a deacon should not be ordained under the age of twenty-five, or a priest under the age of thirty. In practice, in all Orthodox Churches people are ordained earlier than these dates. That, I think, does not raise any controversial issue. It is a relaxation of the rules. But to say that a person who has been unbaptized, who has received an external ceremony of baptism, but has not been baptized, that somehow his baptism could be made to exist by economy through the use of chrismation — that I find quite difficult. I don’t think economy can be used to justify creating something that did not previously exist. I would probably write this in my introduction.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: “ROCOR Emphasis On Assetic and Liturgical Tradition is Very Much Needed Today” - ROCOR Studies

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, nobody will ever accuse you, jck, of being in the moderate party of the Orthodox Church!

here's something interesting:

On this topic of oikonomia, what would be your take on the notion that empty forms of the properly performed baptism are filled with grace at the moment of reception in any mode of the reception? So if you are receiving a priest through repentance, the Church is able to grant through this act whatever is needed for his ministry, without recognizing his baptism. That’s another interpretation of sacramental oikonomia.

Met. Kallistos Ware: Yes, I am aware indeed of this particular explanation. I am not very content with this. I feel that oikonomia can be used to permit a departure from the strict rules of the Church, but it cannot be used to make something exist which did not previously exist.
Now a typical example that I would give of a justified use of oikonomia which is not controversial, is that the canons say that a deacon should not be ordained under the age of twenty-five, or a priest under the age of thirty. In practice, in all Orthodox Churches people are ordained earlier than these dates. That, I think, does not raise any controversial issue. It is a relaxation of the rules. But to say that a person who has been unbaptized, who has received an external ceremony of baptism, but has not been baptized, that somehow his baptism could be made to exist by economy through the use of chrismation — that I find quite difficult. I don’t think economy can be used to justify creating something that did not previously exist. I would probably write this in my introduction.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: “ROCOR Emphasis On Assetic and Liturgical Tradition is Very Much Needed Today” - ROCOR Studies

 

[Cappadocious]

+Kallistos might mean that something *did* exist.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Yes Met. Kallistos is definitely saying that something must exist there. He is saying that Chrismation cannot create a Baptism if it only existed in form before. If there was nothing to other Trinitarian baptisms, then we would have to rebaptize everyone.

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, nobody will ever accuse you, jck, of being in the moderate party of the Orthodox Church!

im not saying i agree with him - he's disagreeing with St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain - its not my place to do that.

just thought it was interesting since it contradicts such a prevailing idea of akrivia/economia.

 

[jckstraw72]

+Kallistos might mean that something *did* exist.

yes, although he does not explicitly say it, that does seem to be his meaning.

 

[buzuxi02]

The problem is that whichever mystery is used to recieve the heterodox, the canons are clear that each group is clearly spoken as "unsaved heretics". All the rest is just modernist speculation. The reception of heterodox into the church regardless of the mode is said to be adding to the portion being saved.

 

[Tallguy88]

The problem is that whichever mystery is used to recieve the heterodox, the canons are clear that each group is clearly spoken as "unsaved heretics". All the rest is just modernist speculation. The reception of heterodox into the church regardless of the mode is said to be adding to the portion being saved.

So I am unsaved...

 

[truefiction1]

So I am unsaved...

 

[jckstraw72]

Canon 1 of Carthage (c. 258, Ecumenically ratified at Trullo), reads:

While assembled in a parliament, dear brethren, we have read letters sent by you concerning those who are presumed among heretics or schismatics to have been baptized and who are joining the catholic Church, which is one single institution in which we are baptized and are regenerated, concerning which facts we are firmly convinced that you yourselves in doing so are ensuring the solidity of the catholic Church. Yet inasmuch as you are of the same communion with us and wished to inquire about this matter on account of a common love, we are moved to give you, and conjoin in doing so, not any recent opinion, nor one that has been only nowadays established, but, on the contrary, one which has been tried and tested with all accuracy and diligence of yore by our predecessors, and which has been observed by us. Ordaining this also now, which we have been strongly and securely holding throughout time, we declare that no one can be baptized outside of the catholic Church, there being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the catholic Church.

 

[jckstraw72]

and Met. Kallistos had earlier written, in his work on Eustratios Argenti:

"The basic principle underlying [economia's] use is that the Church has been endowed by God with authority to manage the affairs of her own household. She is therefore in full sense the steward (oikonomos) and sovereign administrator of the sacraments; and it falls within the scope of her stewardship and economy to make valid -- if she so thinks fit -- sacraments administered by non-Orthodox, although such sacraments are no sacraments if considered in themselves and apart from the Orthodox Church. Because a person's Baptism is accepted as valid -- or rather made valid by economy -- when he becomes Orthodox, it does not therefore follow that his Baptism was valid before he became Orthodox. The use of economy implies no recognition of the validity of non-Orthodox sacraments per se; it is something that concerns only the sacraments of those entering the Orthodox Church."

 

[buzuxi02]

So I am unsaved...

From what I see only the RC church believes that upon baptism when practised using the proper formula makes one a member of the papal church regardless of who or what organizationbaptises you. They even seem to practise open communion amongst Orthodox.

The Orthodox Church on the other hand would never say that my baptism as an infant in the Orthodox Church grants me membership in all the sects and denominations. Likewise we would never say the baptism of a person in a pentecostal church is actually baptism into the Orthodox Church. Otherwise we would have open communion.

 

[Tallguy88]

The problem is that whichever mystery is used to recieve the heterodox, the canons are clear that each group is clearly spoken as "unsaved heretics". All the rest is just modernist speculation. The reception of heterodox into the church regardless of the mode is said to be adding to the portion being saved.

Excuse me. An "unsaved heretic".

 

[Tallguy88]

From what I see only the RC church believes that upon baptism when practised using the proper formula makes one a member of the papal church regardless of who or what organizationbaptises you. They even seem to practise open communion amongst Orthodox.

The Orthodox Church on the other hand would never say that my baptism as an infant in the Orthodox Church grants me membership in all the sects and denominations. Likewise we would never say the baptism of a person in a pentecostal church is actually baptism into the Orthodox Church. Otherwise we would have open communion.

I was baptized in a Pentecostal church. So... unsaved heretic?

The RCC acknowledges our common Baptism. Those who are Baptized in the Trinitarian formula and who have a proper understanding of the Trinity, are considered Baptized Christians, united with the Church, though imperfectly.

 

[InnerPhyre]

I would be careful about throwing the "H" word around with regard to people who were raised in other faith traditions and have had little or no exposure to the Orthodox Faith. We're not dealing with people who were Orthodox and decided to innovate. This is all they were taught of Christ and for a number of the ones who find Orthodoxy, that awful heresy that they used to practice was a stepping stone toward Orthodoxy, without which, they might well have found themselves Pagans or outright Atheists. I'm sure it makes you feel very pious and holy to think of them all as a bunch of heretics, but it is more likely to drive them away than bring them to the fullness of the True Faith.