www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Church sui iuris and canonical ascription

Slava Isusu Christu!

I haven't posted here in over a year, it is nice to be back.
I hope all of you have been well in the Lord.

My friend who just entered the Byzantine Ruthenian Church has a problem. I only mention it here because it is a canonical quandry for me.

His situation is thus:

He was originally baptized in the Assembly of God when he was 8 years old, with a possible baptism as a baby in the United Methodist church which cannot be verified. Later, he started attending a Latin parish and began RICA until he was enrolled as a catechumen, but switched qickly to a Byzantine parish. He only had three months of formation in the Eastern Church. Before his reception he disclosed to me that he believed his Assembly of God baptism was invalid because they do not intend to do what the Catholic Church does in baptism. So he told his priest that was never baptized, without mentioning the earlier baptisms. After his baptism, chrismation and Eucharist he learned that the Latin Church views Assembly of God baptism as valid. Is he automatically ascribed to the Latin Church because of his baptism in a western ecclesial communion or dooes his ascription belong to the Ruthenian Church? Does the fact that he was made a catechumen in the Latin Church have any bearing on his ritual Church ascription? Is this a grave sin for him to have had his baptism repeated or was the sin forgiven automatically through his Chrismation?

Thanks for the help.

In the Theanthropos,


Robert Horvath

I am not an expert in this field, but my take is that:

1. It was wrong to conceal his earlier baptism(s), even if he doubted their validity.

2. If his concealment was honestly because he considered them invalid, then I would not consider him being guilty of the sacrilege of attempted re-baptism.

3. Even if valid, his earlier baptism doesn't force him to become a Latin. The practice of receiving Protestants to Sui Iuris Churches other than the Latin Church is rather common.

4. His enrollment as a catechumen in a Latin parish has no canonical bearing whatsoever.

5. I would URGE him to consult with his parish priest on this matter, to see if there is anything to be done, other than a good confession.

Shalom,
Memo

Memo:

I think he rationalized not telling his priest based on his own private interpretation of validity in regard to baptism or rather his interpretation of the traditional Catholic perspective. It seems both the Eastern and Latin codes agree that both Methodist and Assembly of God baptisms are valid. He says that he was not malicious, but that he wanted to just start over with the three mysteries being performed, particularly baptism.

Protestant baptisms in the name of the Trinity are considered valid. However, some mainline denominations have approved other formulas like Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, this would be invalid. AG's have been known to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ alone, again the Church would view this as invalid. If he could not remember what formula was used, he would probably been conditionally baptized anyway.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father,

He does not remember if he was baptized as a Methodist since this would have been done as a baby, his mother told him she thinks he was baptized in a Methodist Church, but he remembers his Assembly of God baptism. He was baptized in a river while the preacher baptized him once using the trinitarian formula. He does not remember if the preacher believed in Oneness theology, but most likely it was mainstream.

With the solution proposed by Fr. Dcn. Lance (either he was baptized once or he was baptized conditionally), Canons 30 and 900 of the CCEO and Canon 111 of the Latin Code direct your friend to be ascribed to the sui juris Church which baptized him: the Byzantine Catholic Church, assuming of course that he was 14 years of age or over at the time of his baptism.

I am not absolutely sure but I would say that the other baptism could have been doubtful. Hence since he entered through the Byzantine Church he should remain untroubled in the Byzantine Church. My Two cents!
The doubfulness of the Baptisms of the last one or two decades would tempt me to conditionaly baptize anyone who comes into the Church wether Byzantine or Latin.
Stephanos I

Robert where are you keeping yourself these days.

Stephanos:

I am attending Gonzaga University in Spokane, WA. I miss Alaska with all her beauty, though. Haven't been out to our Church in the valley yet. I have been occasionally been going to Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church right next to me. Most of the time I receive Eucharist from St. Aloyisius Gonzaga Church on campus.

I think it probably is best to leave 'sleeping dogs' alone as they may, but I did not know if he incurred any canonical irregularities. And I am not sure if he was in a way deceiving the priest in order not to deal with the problem of his previous situtations. What would be the traditional Eastern position about something like this aside from all the Latin canonical language?

I would say you have to presume his good faith and leave it like that. Anyway now for sure he is validly Baptized and Confirmed and receiving the Eucharist.
Stephanos I

Dear Friends:

As far as I know, the Assemblies of God baptizes with the Trinitarian formula. they do not do Jesus name baptism, and they are not Oneness in their theology.

There is a group called the United Pentecostal Church that has a Modalist theology, and baptizes in Jesus name only.

Normally the Church does not give full recognition either to Assembly of God Baptisms or to Methodist Baptisms - so your friend was probably right. In any event, liturgically speaking, neither of these communities could possibly be considered to correspond to any Catholic sui iuris Church. And it would be a practical impossibility either to determine with certainty what order of Baptism this or that minister used, let alone what the intention was. Don't worry about it. Better yet, don't even think about it.

Fr. Serge

Thank you Father. That helps. I am sure my friend will be able to rest his scrupulous mind now

In Christ,


Robert

At least some Methodist Church have a rite for infants, I think it is called "churching", which does not involve water.

Here in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, this is NOT considered a valid baptism, although many Methodists would consider it equivalent to baptism.

Shalom,
Memo

In the UK, Methodist Baptism of children [ and adults ] , is Trinitarian and accepted by the RC Church

I'll mention what I've been told as a newly chrismated Orthodox. In the Antiochian Orthodox Church, converts who have been baptized with the proper trinitarian formula are received by chrismation. I was told that if there were any irregularities in my baptism or anything unknown to us that may have made it of questionable validity, then the chrismation would supply what was lacking in the baptism.

I would suggest, according to this point of view, that in the following hypothetical situation:

Suppose a convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism was told by his parents that he was baptized when he was young (but actually he was not). Suppose then that when he becomes Orthodox or Catholic he is received by chrismation without conditional baptismn. Then technically he would have never been baptized. But according to the principle of Oikonomia (sp?), the chrismation would supply all the benefits and grace and that would have been given in baptism.

God bless,

Joe