Baptism and Other Mysteries Outside of the Church

[Ioustinos]

**NOTE: Responses only from Orthodox believers only***

As many of you know there is a huge debate over baptism in contemporary Orthodoxy - especially in the U.S. With the number of Protestants converting to the Orthodox faith there has been a debate as to whether they are only received via Chrismation or through Baptism and Chrismation.

Those on the side of Chrismation only point to historical economia and the doctrine taught by the Apostle Paul "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). Those on the side of Baptism and Chrismation point to the truth that the mysteries are only performed within the Church - ie. Eucharist, Ordination, Marriage, etc. For example, on Mount Athos all are baptized and chrismated because there are no mysteries outside of the Church.

Recently I was reading about an Orthodox Archimandrite who was barred from serving liturgy by his bishop because he communed at a Catholic mass. His response was this, "Our church recognises Catholic sacraments, so this means that it recognises also the Catholic Church itself, as sacraments are not conducted outside the church. You cannot approach church sacraments without faith. I am being pressured to recant, but recant for what? That I took the Body and Blood of Christ? I cannot repent of that, as that would constitute direct blasphemy and mockery of Christ."

As I understand it, the only mystery or sacrament that the Orthodox Church accepts outside of itself is the mystery of baptism. This is what I think he is referencing when he states that "Our church recognises Catholic sacraments..."

He justifies his reception of the Eucharist at a Catholic mass on the basis that other mysteries (i.e. Baptism) are accepted by the Orthodox Church, so why are the other mysteries not treated likewise.

I think it raises an interesting question and really highlights the necessity of having a united stance on this issue because of the possible arguments that could be made, as was set forth by the aforementioned Archimandrite.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think that archimandrite needs to look at the canons a tad closer. even if you are receiving by chrismation only, you are still recognizing the person is outside of the Church and therefore does not have a true sacramental life.

 

[nutroll]

I think that issues like reception by Chrismation or vesting clergy from other confessions as orthodox clergy upon reception into the church can cause much confusion among laity about sacraments existing outside the boundaries of Orthodoxy. But ultimately, these are matters above our pay grade. Bishops must run their dioceses as they see fit for the benefit of the souls under their care.

The canons give different means of reception depending on what group someone is converting from. So this principle is not modernist ecumenist attempts to redefine things.

In ROCOR, the general rule is that Catholics and Protestants are received by Baptism. However, at our parish ( I can't speak for our whole diocese, because I don't know if other parishes have been told differently) Oriental Orthodox are to be received by confession. I have seen people who put off converting because they didn't want to be baptized again (at least they felt like it would be a rebaptism). I have also seen people in other jurisdictions that wanted to be received by baptism but were received by Chrismation. We need to trust in the decisions of our bishops, knowing that we will not be held accountable even if they were to make a poor decision.

 

[buzuxi02]

**NOTE: Responses only from Orthodox believers only***

As many of you know there is a huge debate over baptism in contemporary Orthodoxy - especially in the U.S. With the number of Protestants converting to the Orthodox faith there has been a debate as to whether they are only received via Chrismation or through Baptism and Chrismation.

Those on the side of Chrismation only point to historical economia and the doctrine taught by the Apostle Paul "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5).

This is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church, no sacrament can exist apart from the Church including baptism. Reception by eikonomia is simply a policy decision usually made on the Synodal level based on whether the heterodox candidate was previously baptised using an appropriate external form and whether that previous sect the candidate belonged to views the Orthodox Church favorably, it is a rule of thumb.
This is why depending on the political climate of various times and places different practises were employed for the same sect.
The bishop can opt to receive a baptismal candidate through chrismation or through baptism., The bishop can flip flop and change his mind on which method to use. Regardless the method chosen will ultimately be the candidate's one and only baptism. It is by reception into the Orthodox Church alone that takes that empty external form, seize the ritual as our own and allow it to fulfill its intended purpose (at the moment of reception not a second before), OR the Church can simply discard this empty ritual for any reason whatsoever and baptise the candidate for the first time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

plus, the very fact that ROCOR and Mt Athos receives via baptism proves that we don't recognize their baptism. if we did, no one would ever be received by baptism by anyone.

 

[archer75]

What I find most confusing of all is that some jurisdictions will re-baptize someone coming from another canical jurisdiction where they were received by Chrismation. If you can commune these people and concelebrate with them...why isn't their reception good enough? I have no idea.

 

[nutroll]

I don't know of any canonical jurisdiction that rebaptizes people coming from other canonical jurisdictions. I've only ever heard of non canonical groups doing that.

 

[archer75]

I don't know of any canonical jurisdiction that rebaptizes people coming from other canonical jurisdictions. I've only ever heard of non canonical groups doing that.

I've heard of at least ROCOR doing it, though I don't know whether they do now. And I'm not saying it's wrong, only that I find it confusing. Does anyone know more?

 

[All4Christ]

I've heard of at least ROCOR doing it, though I don't know whether they do now. And I'm not saying it's wrong, only that I find it confusing. Does anyone know more?

I’ve heard of it, but considered it to be the exception, not the norm. I don’t think it follows the standard practice of the church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I heard of Russian parishes doing so, and it was explained to me that it was really tracing back to the way Russia was cut off from the Church for s while and so had been forced to stand on her own, so there was some lag in understanding if policies that needed time to catch up and be uniform.

Like Laura said, I understood it was a more of "this has happened" rather than "this is the policy and the way things are".

 

[All4Christ]

Father just said that anything lacking in my baptism was filled with the chrismation. He follows the direction of his bishop, and I trust that the bishop follows the direction of the Church. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit blows where He will. Whether we recognize a baptism or not doesn’t negate that.

(In the OCA, we are taught that it isn’t the fullness of the sacrament. It isn’t enough to make us be part of the Church. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t beneficial though. Based on this, it makes sense that if someone isn’t Orthodox, baptism is good for them to do. Many are following God in the best way they know how. Father said that I didn’t abandon my faith but came to the fulfillment of it. I’m not an ecumenist, but I believe God will work where He will - and I trust my bishop. Their jobs - priest and bishop - are to know how to best spiritually apply the canons and Scriptures for each person, based on the guidance of the Church and Holy Spirit).

 

[Anhelyna]

I'm not OCA [ obviously ] I'm Russian Tradition under the Ecumenical Patriarch.

What A4C posted here << Father said that I didn’t abandon my faith but came to the fulfillment of it. I’m not an ecumenist, but I believe God will work where He will - and I trust my bishop. Their jobs - priest and bishop - are to know how to best spiritually apply the canons and Scriptures for each person, based on the guidance of the Church and Holy Spirit.>>

is more or less exactly what my priest said to me

 

[archer75]

I'm not OCA [ obviously ] I'm Russian Tradition under the Ecumenical Patriarch.

What A4C posted here << Father said that I didn’t abandon my faith but came to the fulfillment of it. I’m not an ecumenist, but I believe God will work where He will - and I trust my bishop. Their jobs - priest and bishop - are to know how to best spiritually apply the canons and Scriptures for each person, based on the guidance of the Church and Holy Spirit.>>

is more or less exactly what my priest said to me

I was trying not to reply again, but I'm too weak! (Thanks for the replies to my question, by the way)

This sounds reasonable to me, but if that's so, then I don't understand the (lay) voices talking about how certain canonical bishops or priests must be deposed because they said X and are therefore insane heretics, etc.

 

[All4Christ]

I was trying not to reply again, but I'm too weak! (Thanks for the replies to my question, by the way)

This sounds reasonable to me, but if that's so, then I don't understand the (lay) voices talking about how certain canonical bishops or priests must be deposed because they said X and are therefore insane heretics, etc.

That is beyond the role of laypersons, and honestly no one except bishops has the authority to dispose anyone. People can raise the attention up and priests can deny communion from what I understand, but deposing clergy (or excommunicating laity) is only the role of bishops and higher from what I understand.

 

[archer75]

That is beyond the role of laypersons, and honestly no one except bishops has the authority to dispose anyone. People can raise the attention up and priests can deny communion from what I understand, but deposing clergy (or excommunicating laity) is only the role of bishops and higher from what I understand.

That's what I thought, but (on the Internet, not in a parish setting) there seems to be a fair bit of talking against unliked clergy including demands that they be deposed. I guess it's just that ol' Internet...

 

[All4Christ]

Even discussing items related to my wedding were discussed at a bishop’s level since it was a topic related to a priest that had been disciplined. It’s not an isolated position...it’s very organic and intrinsically working together between laity, priests, bishops, etc.

 

[straykat]

This is one of the only stumbling blocks for me with wanting to become a catechumen. I've seen plenty of examples now of Orthodox who won't even consider me Orthodox, if I'm just a convert with chrismation. They don't even consider well known ones like Seraphim Rose as Orthodox, because of this.

Frankly, this stinks. Sorry. I can't think of a better word. I'd feel like one of those Gentiles in Antioch that get shunned by the Jews who don't want to eat with them or something.

 

[All4Christ]

This is one of the only stumbling blocks for me with wanting to become a catechumen. I've seen plenty of examples now of Orthodox who won't even consider me Orthodox, if I'm just a convert with chrismation. They don't even consider well known ones like Seraphim Rose as Orthodox, because of this.

Frankly, this stinks. Sorry. I can't think of a better word. I'd feel like one of those Gentiles in Antioch that get shunned by the Jews who don't want to eat with them or something.

FWIW, As someone who converted with just chrismation, I have never come across this type of attitude.

 

[All4Christ]

Sometimes people on the internet will say things like that, but I don’t think there is a single person on this forum who would consider you not to be Orthodox - and none I have met in person think that (in regards to people who are just chrismated). It’s ultimately up to the bishop and jurisdiction.

 

[straykat]

Yeah, perhaps I should just stay away from the net.

Well, except here, of course