Being Recieved into Orthodoxy

Discuss the holy Mysteries and the liturgical life of the Church such as the Hours, Vespers, Matins/Orthros, Typica, and the Divine Liturgy. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Post Reply
Daniel
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu 10 July 2003 9:00 pm

Post by Daniel »

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD

15/28 September, 1971

On the question of the baptism of heretics who accept Orthodoxy the following resolution was passed:

The Holy Church has from old believed that there can be but one true baptism, namely that which is performed within her bosom: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). In the Symbol of Faith "one baptism" is also confessed, while canon 46 of the holy apostles decrees: "we order any bishop, or presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed."

However, when the zeal of any of the heretics weakened in their battle with the Church, or when the question of their mass conversion to Orthodoxy arose, the Church, to facilitate their union, received them into her bosom through another form. In his first canon, which was incorporated into the decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, St. Basil the Great indicates the existence of various practices in the reception of heretics in different countries. He explains that every separation from the Church deprives one of grace and writes concerning schismatics: "The beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the fathers and with the impartation of their hands had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore, they [the ancient partisans of Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian] bade that those baptized by them [the heretics] should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that, when they came to join the Church, they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church". However, "for the sake of the edification of many," St. Basil does not object to the use of another form of reception for the schismatic Cathari in Asia. Concerning the Encratites he writes: "If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy" [of the Church], another practice may be employed, explaining it in this way: "For I am inclined to suspect that we may, by the severity of the prescription actually prevent men from being saved. . ."

Thus, St. Basil the Great, and through his words the Ecumenical Council, while confirming the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church there is no true Baptism, allows through pastoral condescension the reception, called economy, of certain heretics and schismatics without a new baptism. In conformity with such a principle, the Ecumenical Councils permitted the reception of heretics in various ways, corresponding to the weakening of their embitterment against the Orthodox Church.

The Kormchaya Kniga (the Slavonic Rudder) cites an explanation of this by Timothy of Alexandria. To the question: "Why do we not baptize heretics who have converted to the Catholic Church?" he replies: "If this were not so, man would not readily turn away from heresy, being ashamed of baptism [i.e. a second baptism], knowing moreover that the Holy Spirit comes even through the laying-on of a priest's hands and through prayers, as the Acts of the Holy Apostles testify."

With regard to Roman Catholics and Protestants who claim to have preserved baptism as a mystery (e.g. the Lutherans), in Russia since the time of Peter I the practice has been followed of receiving them without baptism, through the renunciation of their heresy and by the chrismation of Protestants and unconfirmed Catholics. Until Peter's reign, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In Greece the practice also varied, but for the past almost 300 years after a certain interval, the practice of baptizing those converting from Catholicism and Protestantism was again introduced. Those received in another manner are not recognized as Orthodox in Greece. There have been many cases in which such members of our Russian Church have not been admitted to Holy Communion.

Having in mind this circumstance and the growth today of the heresy of ecumenism, which attempts to eradicate completely the distinction between Orthodoxy and all the heresies, so that the Moscow Patriarchate, in violation of the sacred canons, has even issued a resolution permitting Roman Catholics to receive Communion in certain cases, the Council of Bishops recognizes the necessity of introducing a stricter practice, i.e. that baptism be performed on all heretics who come to the Church, excepting only as the necessity arises and with the permission of the bishop, for reasons of economy or pastoral condescension, another practice of reception in the case of certain persons (i.e. the reception into the Church of Roman Catholics and those Protestants who perform their baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity) through the renunciation of their heresy and by chrismation.

Translated from: Orthodox Russia, Vol. 42, #20 (15/28 Nov., 1971), p. 12. This article and the resolution was published in Orthodox Life, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1979, pp. 35-43.

User avatar
PFC Nektarios
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon 1 December 2003 3:14 pm

Post by PFC Nektarios »

I have ruled out the OCA completly, I have no desire to join the OCA, I want to join a Historical Church. I know of a Antiochian Priest who even uses the old Julian Calender despite the Archdiocese say so, so I wonder if he would recieve me by Baptism and Chrismation?

ROCOR does recieve by Mysteries of Initation as far as i know, my Spiritual Father is ROCOR. Are there any Jerusalem Patriarchate Parishes in the US?

All the Historical Mainstream Orthodox Jurisdictions, are in the WCC even the Russian Orthodox Church, so even though I dont agree with Ecumenism, There is no Hideing from it, so I am going to join a
Church were im most confortable, and spiritualy nurished which is the most important, so it will either be The Antiochian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox Church.

Orgianlly I was baptized in a Protestant Church and Chrismated in the Byzantine Catholic Church.

In Christ

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

OrthodoxLearner,

Continue to pray..."...to lead us in the path of thy knowledge", work towards that, and I'm certain that eventually all doors will be opened to you.

User avatar
TomS
Protoposter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed 4 June 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by TomS »

OrthodoxLearner wrote:

I have ruled out the OCA completly, I have no desire to join the OCA, I want to join a Historical Church.

Then you should join the ORIGINAL Church; the Greek Orthodox Church.

Don't waste your time joining schismatic sects like the ROAC or even the ROCOR fundies. You will just end up jumping to a new one when it is decided that the use of toilet paper is now considered a heresy since it is not scriptural. :lol:

----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Excuse me? TomS, it has never been taught that one has to be in communion with the EP to be "Canonical Orthodox"! That is neo-papal-patriarchalism! Your EP, in fact, does not even recognize the autocephaly of the OCA that you praise! The same EP that you seemingly hold up as a pope that all must be in communion with, however, does recognize the canonical foundation of ROCOR and accept its saints like Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco. ROCOR may not be in SCOBA, but that should speak well for it. It is, however, in the pan-Orthodox organization like SCOBA in Europe.

User avatar
TomS
Protoposter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed 4 June 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by TomS »

Nicholas wrote:

Excuse me? TomS, it has never been taught that one has to be in communion with the EP to be "Canonical Orthodox"!

I didn't say that it was. He said he was looking for an "Historical Church" All I said was that the Greek Church is the ORIGINAL church.

Nicholas wrote:

Your EP, in fact, does not even recognize the autocephaly of the OCA that you praise!

I have never supported NOT having an EP, my gripe with the EP is that he is under the jurisdiction of Mulslims. And I question why that is so when his flock is not in Turkey.

Nicholas wrote:

The same EP that you seemingly hold up as a pope that all must be in communion with, however, does recognize the canonical foundation of ROCOR and accept its saints like Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco.

Notice that I used to term ROCOR "fundies". By that I meant those ROCORites who are threatening to go further into schism by rejecting out-of-hand the reunion with the MP.

----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Nicholas wrote:

Your EP, in fact, does not even recognize the autocephaly of the OCA that you praise!

I have never supported NOT having an EP, my gripe with the EP is that he is under the jurisdiction of Mulslims. And I question why that is so when his flock is not in Turkey.[/quote]

Huh, I never said anything about not having an EP, I just said that they do not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA. And by the way, wouldn't the Church of Jerusalem be the original Orthodox Church? :lol:

Post Reply