www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox Re-baptism?

I didn't see any mention about Chrismation of "uniats", received during or after the time of Catherine the Great in the Archimandrite Ambrosius article. Instead, remarkably, the idea noted was of their having "always been in communion with [Orthodoxy]". Also very interesting in the article was the practice in the near-term aftermath of Brest. Even those baptized Orthodox who became "uniats" then wished to return to Orthodoxy were RE-baptized.

Anastasios, do you know much about contemporary practice of Melkites and Antiochians in the middle east? It is often suggested here that there is widespread intercommunion - which would presumably have a major impact on manner of reception.

The idea that those who do not hold your opinion are simply not reading scholarly sources is ludicrous. There are several different but valid Orthodox opinions and customs regarding re-baptism. There is no definitive teaching on this issue within Orthodoxy. That should always be noted.

Well, no. A good read of history will show that there is a direct link between the practice of re-baptism and the (good or bad) relationships between Orthodoxy and Catholicism (you can see the same on the Catholic side). Even after the Melkites embraced Rome there was a certain amount of ongoing intercommunion, one that continues to this day. In southern Italy right up into the 19th century it was not uncommon for Orthodox and Catholics to hear confessions of members of the other Churches and to participate in pilgrimages (that included Eucharistic sharing). This issue must be examined in light of the entire experience of the Church.

And? This really has no direct relation to whether or not Orthodoxy has a definitive teaching on this, and whether the custom of re-baptism is normative within Orthodoxy.

On could also state that the giving of Communion by an Orthodox bishop or priest to a Catholic is the prerogative of the local Orthodox bishop. Since no one outside of Orthodox communion holding to unorthodox beliefs is Orthodox this bishop must be declaring them to be holding Orthodox beliefs whenever he communicates a Catholic (and demands no profession of faith or promise that they will not receive in a Catholic Church ever again). There are easily far more examples of Orthodox giving Eucharist to Catholics then there are Orthodox re-baptizing Catholics. So this argument only leads to a mess.

In the end, the larger point is that Orthodoxy has no definitive teaching on the topic of re-baptism and, as you point out, puts it in the hands of the local bishop to use his discretion.

In Orthodoxy both the development of doctrine and ecclesiology give precedence upon what has occurred before, especially what was taught at the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Issues like rebaptism are merely an attempt to apply teachings that have developed over time to present pastoral conditions, and those pastoral conditions are directly influenced by the (then) current status of East-West relations. On issues like re-baptism Orthodoxy holds no definitive teaching.

Yes, you are quite correct that it has no official standing. But it is a working document of SCOBA and was prepared right there at St. Vladimir�s, so it cannot be dismissed as rubbish. Once cannot consider it official teaching of Orthodoxy yet one can not argue that Orthodoxy is not open to the ideas presented in this document. Orthodoxy would not have participated in this dialog for the past 40 years if the agreed statements they have produced were truly of no consequence to them.

Keep in mind that chrismation is a symbol of reconciliation, not initiation. This is shown in that the chrismation prayers for a convert are different (penitential) than the ones used at initiation (given together with Baptism and Eucharist).

LOL! Administrator, if you would read those articles, they have serious disagreements with each other and I offered them specifically because they offer differing positions on the issue while providing copious amounts of historical footnotes which add to the discussion and help facilitate it! I absolutely do *NOT* agree with the Pagodin article but because it is considered one of the *MOST* scholarly treatments of the issue I offered it for the sake of fair and open discussion! That merely proves that I am not approaching this issue from a bent or agenda.

I will address your other points after you acknowledge that you completely misread my position and ascribed things to me that I do not beleive. I do not say this out of some prideful sense of "gotcha" but I really cannot invest hours of discussion into something if other participants are going to take what I say and use it to ascribe false motives and positions to me.

Anastasios

CaelumJR

Both churches now have accepted teachings that were not defined in the Ecumenical Councils. These teachings do not necessarily have to have the seal of infallibility to be considered authoritative, that is true in both the Catholic and Orthodox Church.

Also, the Orthodox Church does not say Trinitarian baptisms outside the church are "invalid". It only acknowledges that the sacrament of baptism was not administered by the church.

Andrew

Anastasios,

If you had offered documents on both sides of the issue I could believe that you were offering them for the true sake of a balanced discussion. The eagerness in which you have taken up providing the documents for the re-baptism side of the issue and in which you so easily dismiss the opposing point of view (see your quick and easy dismissal of the St. Vladimir�s document) suggests that you are either not open-minded to consider this issue or you are preparing your posts merely to solicit debate for debates� sake. That�s something I really don�t want to engage in.

Admin

Regarding the situation with the Antiochian/Melkite Church.

What I have heard from sources there is that relations are good, including a shared use temple. However, priests do not concelebrate and there isn't what would be termed widespread intercommunion. I would think Rome as much as anyone else would be troubled by that. I do believe there is a pastoral provision in place to allow for communion when a communicant of one church is not in proximity to one of their own temples.

It is also my understanding that the norm for reception of converts with Trinitarian baptisms in the Patriarchate of Antioch is by Chrismation. That is both in the mother church and the diaspora.

Andrew

This entire exchange seems rather pointless, unless the individuals with a complaint would like to also cross the Orontes and convert themselves why even care?

These are supposed coreligionists (or former anyway) who are willing to accept Chrismation or conditional rebaptism, they have already agreed to the acceptability of the form of reception based upon their new bishop's instructions. Sincere converts don't take offense, and it is their opinion that really counts!

I think the real question here is "what is the true nature of church?".

+T+
Michael

I most certainly DID offer documents from both sides of the issue. Neither the Padogin nor the Dragas article "supports rebaptism." Pagodin's article is used at St Vladimir's Seminary, in fact, to support reception by chrismation as the historical norm, and specifically to argue *against* baptism of converts. The book "I Confess One Baptism" does support baptism of converts. So as you can see, I submitted material from both sides of the issue.

The fact that you didn't take the time to read through them (which is shown by the fact that you assumed I offered three sources that were pro-baptism of converts, when in fact, only one is pro-baptism of converts, and the Pagodin piece is used as a tool to discredit the baptism of converts position) suggests that you aren't really interested in discussion, but are more interested in ascribing motives to people that don't exist, for what reason, I have no idea.

Anastasios

Sorry, but I don�t buy it. The whole purpose of your post seems to be either to stir up debate (for whatever reason) or to present re-baptism as the more normative custom within Orthodoxy.

And yes, I had read both of the references you linked (but not the one you did not link). Pagodin is nice and recounts the history but is hardly authoritative from the Orthodox viewpoint. Dragas is much better and at the level of (or at least similar to) the Catholic-Orthodox Statement (in quality) which you dismissed so easily as not really reflective of Orthodox thought.

One should also refer to such matters as Ecumenical Councils and the way in which the Church acted in the patristic period. The Seventh Council received heretics without requiring either re-baptism or re-ordination. Does Anastasios happen to know the "process" by which Saint Meletios of Antioch was received from the Arians?

Incognitus

Administrator, please, you claimed I only cite articles that support my point of view and I just showed you that that is not the case. I don't need you to agree with me or "buy it" but I do need you to be honest that you made an accusation against me which is not true.

While I don't have an agenda (people with agendas don't usually start their posts out with references to scholarly articles that directly contradict what they happen to believe), I do have a position which I believe in firmly; and when your moderator stated something about Orthodoxy that I interpret to not be entirely factual or accurate, I merely provided an opposing source. Now I did not claim that only baptism of converts is the way to go, because if that were the case I'd be quoting articles from orthodoxinfo.com and not from scholarly articles. Since this is a discussion and debate forum, I chose to discuss and debate the issue.

Well that is really surprising, then. Since Pagodin does not argue that baptism of Catholics is normative, why did you say I cited only sources that support my point of view? You are contradicting yourself.

Which is beside the point since I never claimed he was and I referred people to more than one source. I am surprised that you are arguing this point since Pagodin supports your position over mine and is used by professors at an Orthodox seminary in attempts to get Orthodox not to baptise Catholics and Protestants.


No, Dragas is not much better; both are scholars whose writing appeared in scholarly journals and whose works are used in Orthodox seminaries. And both of them basically contradict my opinion, which just shows again that I am not pushing an agenda (but I do have a position that I take).

In Christ,

Anastasios

Click the link below for an interesting article that touches upon this topic by Tamara Grdzelidze:

Using the principle of oikonomia in... of the Church" by George Florovsky [findarticles.com]

It occurs to me that purgation for these ultra-Orthodox types, the ones that recognize no baptism except their own, will be to be stuck somewhere with a bunch of SSPX types, or maybe black Baptists or holy rollers, until everyone gets it: One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
As usual, I am refreshed by my agreement with the Administrator, with whom I am usually arguing about politics. Keep up the good work, John.
-Daniel

Anastasios,

Actually, I meant three not four, since the Monophosites did not accept Chalcedon. Apart from my misstep there, any thoughts on this?

Gordo

From the article you posted on Baptism and Sacramental Economy:

There is a definitive teaching, which the same article goes on to suggest be rescinded. The debate is about the application of economy when receiving converts, that is subject to pastoral disrection.

Andrew