The Baptism Question

[Chrysostomos]

After reading the posts from the New Calendar Greek Baptism Post I thought it would be right to post some things that I have on my mind. Maybe more questions, than answers. Please understand I am posting this as I have had some questions lurking in the back of my mind on this subject for some time. Especially after reading St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechesis Lectures. I should add that I am a tonsured reader and attend an OCA Church.

Let's start out with a post from the NCGB post by Edward:

Even the Russian Church Abroad did not make baptism their standard for received heterdox christians. Father Seraphim Rose was chrismated, as ROCOR accepted his Presbyterian Baptism.

Now the rational is, that because Fr. Seraphim Rose is considered close to being recognized as a saint, if he is, then it justifies, validates his being only chrismated and accepting his baptism as a Presbyterian as valid.

Here's my first question....

If in accepting Fr. Seraphim's baptism, anyone's baptism, outside the Orthodox Church, isn't that in "essence" stating that the baptism that was done, was just as valid as if he or she was baptized in the Orthodox Church?

If in fact we state yes, then the next line of thought would be thus, if the baptism is valid, then so is the faith/Church/denomination as valid, and thus it should not matter whether one is "Orthodox" or any other Christian denomination, as long as they are baptised in the name of the Trinity?

That what one essentially would recognize is a Three Lung Approach, Orthodox-Catholic-Protestant? That all are accepted by God as His Church?

So, yes, Latins and Protestants ought to be baptised, but we must not be so judgemental as this issue has been a problem for two centuries now.

Has it been a problem due to this being more an "American" problem, because of the vast growth of Protestant denominations in America over the last 200 years? That due to American's independent nature, that they had already been baptized, they should not have to be rebaptized as Orthodox?

Having said all that, understand, that as I speak, I myself came into the Church via Chrismation. This is not an issue of some Old Calendarist, Traditionalist axe grinding, trouble making person. This is someone (me), who has some serious questions that I wouldn't mind all of us discussing in a civilized manner.

I am at my office, thus I do not have my St. Cyril notes, but I will be posting additional posts with quotes from St. Cyril in regards to baptism. I have to admit, pretty heavy stuff, and it doesn't mesh well with what the acceptable rule is today in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I should also state, that those of the "True" Churches shouldn't get on their "high" horses either, as St. Cyril talks about those who come to baptism, but their hearts are not right, and that while the water is present, the spirit is not. Indicating that you might go to the "True" Church, take the Catechisis, and go for Baptism, but you may, like Simon Magnus, be approaching the faith with other than a sincere heart.

I will post the quotes, etc. Please, once again, understand this is not brought up to create a situation for bashing one another, but for discussion, and really trying to answer questions that I and others may have.

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[ioannis]

According to the canons and the Saints of the Church who already established the definitions of the eternal faith long before Russia was baptized, only people who have received the proper form of baptism can be received by economy, and even then by discretion.

Historical Russian practice on receiving heretics since the 1600s is errant and cannot be any kind of a model. If people want examples of error I can assure you there will be no shortage.

The patriarch Anatolious was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus and his heretical synod; and even St. Meletius of Antioch was ordained by Arians, according to Sozomenus (Book 4, ch. 28); and many others were ordained by heretics and were thereafter accepted by the Orthodox leaders under a variety of circumstances and reasons.

Hence in view of the fact that the Chruch did not make this temporal and circumstantial "economy" a "definition," it cannot be said to conflict with the Apostolical Canons. But such examples are relatively rare and occasional and due to the circumstances of the case, and they lack canonicity. Anything, however, that is due to circumstances and that is a rarity is not a law of the Church, both according to c. XVII of the 1st-&-2nd and according to Gregory the Theologian, and also according to the second act of the Council held in St. Sophia and according to that legal dictum which says: "Whatever is contrary to the spirit of the Canons cannot be drawn upon as a model."

I mean really, if one bounces a check or gets a traffice ticket, I doubt anyone will be using this as a justification to want more; it happens of course, but nobody who cares wants more.

Of course I realize our visitors from the ecumenist churches will likely want to see many examples of error (and that may be fine for them) so that their own practices look all the better, but those in the Orthodox church do not.

[Jean-Serge]

If in accepting Fr. Seraphim's baptism, anyone's baptism, outside the Orthodox Church, isn't that in "essence" stating that the baptism that was done, was just as valid as if he or she was baptized in the Orthodox Church?

No the Canons of the Apostles are clear. A bishop who recognizes an heretical baptism is to be deposed... The fact is that heretic mysteries are like empty nutshell with no Grace... However an Orthodox mystery only is necessary to give Grace to the previous heterodox mysteries.

As I said previously, the notion of validity is a Latin one. It seems that this forum, even if traditionnalist does not escape to Latin thinkings... as the whole Orthodox world... Everybody speaking about validity, invalidity etc... Is this scholastic or legalism?

[Edward]

I would again agree that the Latins and Protestants ought to be received into the Church by Baptism. But the practice of chrismation has been in existence for over two centuries. Even with the Latins, after the Great Schism it was originally the practice to chrismate them, later on it was decided that baptism was the correct way. I suppose that is because initially the Latins had the same form as the Orthodox until they eventually made pouring the standard for their baptism.

We ought to be faithful to the canons, but we cannot use the canons to judge others, especially if we are laypeople. Despite, this canonical infraction, those received into the church by chrismation, like Father Seraphim Rose or Saints Alexandra and Elizabeth have attained sanctity.

Edward
geh8988@gmail.com

[Chrysostomos]

Catechetical Lectures - Quotes in regards to baptism.

We may not receive baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said, though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas if thou fail once, the thing cannot be set right: for there is one Lord, and one faith and one baptism: for only the heretics are re-baptized, because the former was no baptism.

Great is the Baptism that lies before you: A ransom of captives; a remission of offenses, a death of sin; a new birth of soul; a garment of light; a holy indissoluble seal; a chariot to heaven; the delight of paradise; a welcome into the kingdom; the gift of adoption!

The Holy Ghost is about to seal your souls; ye are to be enrolled in the army of the great King. Therefore make you ready, & equip yourselves, by putting on I mean, not bright apparel, but piety of soul with a good concience. Regard not the laver as simple water, but rather the spiritual grace that is given with the water.

The water cleanses the body, and the spirit seals the soul.

The simple water having received the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father, acquires a new power of holiness.

These are a few of the quotes I mentioned about in my previous post. Please re-read my post and feel free to comment. If we recognize Protestant baptism, then do we not, knowingly or unknowingly infer that the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem apply to their baptism as much as the Orthodox Church? If not, then are we not in grave error of accepting Catholic or Protestant baptism?

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[ioannis]

Chrysostomos,

It is my belief that at some point in the last decade or so, ecumenists have recognized that a deep and meaningful union with heretics will not happen by means of signing agreements and conducting theological whitewashes. Clearly "signing agreements" have only won them scorn by the few who care and indifference by most everyone else (just don't take their fests away), but where it really counts it doesn't do anything to bring anyone together.

It appears to me that the ecumenists have become much more insideous and destructive. Bringing about a recognition in Baptism, as the WCC documents say, is a very important first step in uniting churches. With this, we actually do have a recognition of "churches", and that Lutherans, for instance, can actually make a person a catechuman and then a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! This belief is now so prevelant in the "world orthodox" churches that it is hard not to find it among individual priests. And with this, what need really is there for any publicized ecumenical prayer service when you undermined the foundation of the people beliefs so completley, and without them knowing it?

And after everyone believes the Lutherans and Latins have a true Baptism, then by extension they will automtically have other Mysteries even if it is not openly acknowledged it might start out as a "we don't know". Then one day soon it will be a sin to be separated from them.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear Chrysostomos,

I missed this thread:

you wrote:

Having said all that, understand, that as I speak, I myself came into the Church via Chrismation. This is not an issue of some Old Calendarist, Traditionalist axe grinding, trouble making person. This is someone (me), who has some serious questions that I wouldn't mind all of us discussing in a civilized manner.

I should also state, that those of the "True" Churches shouldn't get on their "high" horses either, as St. Cyril talks about those who come to baptism, but their hearts are not right, and that while the water is present, the spirit is not. Indicating that you might go to the "True" Church, take the Catechisis, and go for Baptism, but you may, like Simon Magnus, be approaching the faith with other than a sincere heart.

If you want to make this a civilized discussion, please don't imply that the "Traditionalists" are "on a high horse". Our bishops and Churchs are simply maintaining what has been the Holy Tradition. this is not about "bashing" anyone, or being better than someone. The New Calendarists have historically been persecuting the Traditionalists, and still are to this day, ie, on Mt. Athos.

There is only One baptism. Yes, in the Ecum. councils, and historically, heterodox have been received by chrismation under certain situations, however, this was under economia. If you know the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, and Apostolic church, then why accept an improper prescription, and instead get the true baptism?

in Christ,
Nectarios