A Question

[The Opinionated Orthodox]

Christ is Risen!

Greetings, my dear Orthodox brothers and sisters. I have a question for those of more experience in Our Faith.

Some time ago, when discussing my conversion to Holy Orthodoxy with my parish priest and dear spiritual Father, I was asked whether or not I had been previously baptised. I answered truthfully, and said that I had been given indeed a Trinitarian baptism, but by a low-church Protestant evangelical group. My personal opinion finds this group to be heretical and all of its two sacraments to be entirely invalid. My spiritual father takes a dissmilar view, asserting that the baptism was valid. He told me that, according to Our Bishops, it would be unlawful to re-baptise me, in that it would violate an article of the Holy Creed. (And in One Baptism, etc) I would have argued that the Protestant so-called “minister,” had no authority at all whatever to invoke the Name of God the Holy Trinity to baptise or to do anything else. Not only this, but the Holy Canons of the Church denounce ‘baptisms’ conferred by heretical clergy.

However, I held my tongue; far be it from me to argue theology with a priest, a person by default far more educated than I in such things, and with ecclesiastical authority. Never would I question the authority of the Church; It is my firm belief that the Bishops are the Holy Apostle’s successors, and have been given the authority by Christ Himself to interperet the truth. Please do not misread my reason for my inquiry.

The question is this:
If the Protestants have no sacramental authority whatever, then why is my baptism that I received from them considered valid?

Follow-up question: will my Holy Chrismation fill in any deficincies in the baptism?

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Christ is Risen!

Greetings, my dear Orthodox brothers and sisters. I have a question for those of more experience in Our Faith.

Some time ago, when discussing my conversion to Holy Orthodoxy with my parish priest and dear spiritual Father, I was asked whether or not I had been previously baptised. I answered truthfully, and said that I had been given indeed a Trinitarian baptism, but by a low-church Protestant evangelical group. My personal opinion finds this group to be heretical and all of its two sacraments to be entirely invalid. My spiritual father takes a dissmilar view, asserting that the baptism was valid. He told me that, according to Our Bishops, it would be unlawful to re-baptise me, in that it would violate an article of the Holy Creed. (And in One Baptism, etc) I would have argued that the Protestant so-called “minister,” had no authority at all whatever to invoke the Name of God the Holy Trinity to baptise or to do anything else. Not only this, but the Holy Canons of the Church denounce ‘baptisms’ conferred by heretical clergy.

However, I held my tongue; far be it from me to argue theology with a priest, a person by default far more educated than I in such things, and with ecclesiastical authority. Never would I question the authority of the Church; It is my firm belief that the Bishops are the Holy Apostle’s successors, and have been given the authority by Christ Himself to interperet the truth. Please do not misread my reason for my inquiry.

The question is this:
If the Protestants have no sacramental authority whatever, then why is my baptism that I received from them considered valid?

Follow-up question: will my Holy Chrismation fill in any deficincies in the baptism?

You will find various opinions about your questions in Orthodoxy. The St. Cyprian view would be that a baptism from a heretical group is not valid. The Augustinian view would be that the validity of a baptism depends on the method and not on the orthodoxy of the person performing the baptism.

I think Matt would be a good person to fill in the gaps here, but I think you are right to defer to your priest. You might express your desire to be re-baptised but if he refuses, I think the conversation stops there, since he is acting perfectly Orthodox in recognising your previous baptism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

there should be a third option of God knows. we Orthodox hold Cyprian and Augustine in balance. we know where God is and where He promised to be (His one Church) and all outside is demonic and deluded darkness like St Cyprian says. but we also know God is at work in the darkness, working with those (because He infinitly loves them) there in what they know to bring them to the Truth like St Augustine.

 

[buzuxi02]

If this is what the bishops hold then they are wrong. Its simply the empty exterior form that the church can validate and make it's own at moment of reception into the Church.
Eikonomia on the reception of heterodox has nothing to do with what the Creed says. it's a policy decision of the Synod based on how much of a threat the heterodox sect is to Orthodoxy. If the sect poses no threat and is even friendly then leniency is applied.

 

[Lukaris]

I think your parish priest is counseling you correctly. Why worry otherwise? No disrespect, but I am not responding to the question above because a “Protestant” could be someone ranging from Joel Osteen to C.S. Lewis. I have only seen admiration for C.S. Lewis within Orthodoxy.

( I originally said “John Hagee” above but switched to Joel Osteen,at least a more gentle example).

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I'd been told that all non-Orthodox 'sacraments' cannot be proven to have been valid or grace-filled: hence, one is baptised for certain and chrismated for certain into Orthodoxy. Deviation from this, apparently, was an 'economia' that has been said that was abused or utilised too much or too liberally. And so, the Orthodox friends I know were baptised into the Orthodox Church (having been received from the Church of Rome). That is what I was told.

However, I take it that this isn't the case across the board given the 'economia' by jurisdictions like the Antiochians of accepting as 'valid' Roman Catholic and certain select High Church Protestants (e.g., Lutherans and Anglicans); receiving these via Chrismation alone (holding by economia that their respective baptisms were 'valid').

 

[buzuxi02]

I'd been told that all non-Orthodox 'sacraments' cannot be proven to have been valid or grace-filled: hence, one is baptised for certain and chrismated for certain into Orthodoxy. Deviation from this, apparently, was an 'economia' that has been said that was abused or utilised too much or too liberally. And so, the Orthodox friends I know were baptised into the Orthodox Church (having been received from the Church of Rome). That is what I was told.

However, I take it that this isn't the case across the board given the 'economia' by jurisdictions like the Antiochians of accepting as 'valid' Roman Catholic and certain select High Church Protestants (e.g., Lutherans and Anglicans); receiving these via Chrismation alone (holding by economia that their respective baptisms were 'valid').

The canons (the very same ones accepted by Rome) make clear that the mode of reception of heretics whether they be received by baptism or chrismation only; are unsaved and are coming to the Church to be added to the portion who are saved.

 

[gzt]

I don't think "validity" is the right term to use, but if you put it baldly like that, "yes". If you look at the canons, the Cyprian view is pretty much not taken until recently. It's kind of silly to say that all these bad heretical groups get explicitly told that their baptisms are not to be redone but then some Protestant who actually affirms Chalcedon has to be rebaptized...

 

[~Anastasia~]

We can't judge how the grace of God has been applied. What we do know is how WE are told to receive people, and we know that God has promised grace in that way. What He does outside of that is His business.

I don't like the word "validity" either as it asks us to judge the Sacraments of others outside the Church. Really that's not our business unless they come to us. They've simply been doing something apart from the Church, so there is no promise that we've received attached to that. But God of course can "save" someone or bestow grace on anyone without them ever hearing about the Church.

For that matter, while we know God has promised grace through the Sacraments of the Church, what happens if someone is inwardly opposed to God in some way and yet receives the Eucharist? They could be a non-believer. I know the priests try to protect people and the Eucharist but what if the person didn't voice his disbelief? Is the Eucharist he receives "valid"? I think it is when the Church distributes it, but will it be a vehicle of grace for the one receiving it with a wrong disposition? People were dying because of failing to properly discern the Eucharist in the first century. It could be that it would be a coal that would burn the one receiving.

Anyway. There has long been some controversy on receiving who by what means. At a point we must trust the Church and trust God, Who is good and loves mankind and desires to save us.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't think "validity" is the right term to use, but if you put it baldly like that, "yes". If you look at the canons, the Cyprian view is pretty much not taken until recently. It's kind of silly to say that all these bad heretical groups get explicitly told that their baptisms are not to be redone but then some Protestant who actually affirms Chalcedon has to be rebaptized...

it's because that's not the issue when it comes to certain Protestant baptisms.

 

[graphite412]

My spiritual father takes a dissmilar view, asserting that the baptism was valid. He told me that, according to Our Bishops, it would be unlawful to re-baptise me, in that it would violate an article of the Holy Creed.

From what you have written, this is a Roman Catholic view on baptismal theology after Vatican II. Fr. Peter Heers does a good job of exposing these beliefs and what all it entails when accepted. Some of these views have crept into Orthodoxy. Traditionally Orthodox have received people by chrismation from heretical groups via economy, but this does not mean that we recognize the baptism from these groups as being sacramentally valid.

Fr. Peter does a few interviews with Jay Dyer that are great. Here is the first free half:

 

[gzt]

From what you have written, this is a Roman Catholic view on baptismal theology after Vatican II. Fr. Peter Heers does a good job of exposing these beliefs and what all it entails when accepted. Some of these views have crept into Orthodoxy. Traditionally Orthodox have received people by chrismation from heretical groups via economy, but this does not mean that we recognize the baptism from these groups as being sacramentally valid.

This is a very weird assertion on your part as it's essentially the stance taken by pre-revolutionary Russian service books.

 

[gzt]

To that point, there are at least two modern saints that come to mind who were received (from Protestantism) by chrismation, as was the process according to those service books.

EDIT: Of course I must note that the current idea of "reception by economy" is a relatively recent (18th century) notion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Fr Seraphim Rose was received by (gasp) chrismation, at the urging of St John Maximovitch (double gasp).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Fr Seraphim Rose was received by (gasp) chrismation, at the urging of St John Maximovitch (double gasp).

FAR be it from me to argue with St. John Maximovitch!

 

[ArmyMatt]

FAR be it from me to argue with St. John Maximovitch!

agreed, while folks today might use oikonomia too liberally, it is there for a reason.

 

[DavidFirth]

What Protestants do you consider to be heretical?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What Protestants do you consider to be heretical?

while not condemnable since most don't know, but all of them.

 

[DavidFirth]

while not condemnable since most don't know, but all of them.

Why?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why?

no Protestant teaches the Gospel as Christ gave the Apostles.