www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Other Sacramental Mysteries BAPTISED IN POLAND, UNBAPTISED IN GREECE

In your posts You point out the variety of opinions you can find within the Orthodox Church on the issues of baptismal validity of the non-Orthodox and in my posts I point out the inconsistency (incoherence), both from dogmatic and disciplinary point of view, and triviality in some cases, of those who deny the validity of the sacraments celebrated by non Orthodox.

Francisco,

In this same forum, there is a thread mentioning that there is the continuing practice of "confirmation" by Latin Catholic bishops of Eastern Catholics who were already chrismated as infants.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/399684/Re_Future_of_Byzantine_Catholi#Post399684

So, the inconsistency regarding the use of the "Sacraments of Initiation" is not an Orthodox problem alone.

The practice of baptizing ORTHODOX who were or are converting to Catholicism is also not unknown. When thousands of Serbs were (forcibly) converted to Catholicism by the Ustashe during WWII they were received by baptism.

You can also be assured, Francisco, that the Orthodox are perfectly aware of the differences in attitude towards Catholic baptisms among their jurisdictions. However, no Orthodox jurisdiction would see these differences as constituting a disagreement on the level of dogma.

It would seem that in the period of 1935-1945 at least, the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not require the re-baptism of validly baptized Greek Catholics or the re-ordination of their priests. A simple reception into Orthodoxy as in the case of St. Alexis was sufficient. My parents and their entire immediate families were baptized, practicing Greek Catholics and they were, as my late father noted on many occasions, Greek Catholics commemorating Pope Pius XII one Sunday and Orthodox Christians commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch the next. Had re-baptism and re-ordination been a condition of episcopal elevation for Father Orestes Chornock in 1938, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he would not have so submitted and most likely his movement would have partly gravitated to the Metropolia or submitted to the authority of Bishop Takach. So, to paraphrase Emerson, a certain consistency must indeed haunt small minds as the minds of the Bishops of Constantinople's synod have been open to a degree of rapprochement with the Roman Church for the better part of the past sixty years at least notwithstanding the steadfast objections of some of the more, shall we way for lack of a more polite term, 'stalwart' factions on Athos.

The metrical books of St. Michael's in Binghamton reflect the change from Greek Catholic to Orthodox administration quite clearly. As of June 1, 1939 the pastor was Orthodox, Father Joseph Mihaly and assigned by Bishop Chornock. The inscription following the departure of the last Greek Catholic pastor, Fr. Starouvsky, makes that quite clear. Yet, among the faithful, they really had no clue regarding the significance of that change.

Basically, as was the case in much of Eastern Europe, a sign went up saying "Under New Management", but the establishment and its product remained unchanged.

"Under New Management.
SAME GREAT MENU!!!!!"

The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably the Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.

Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place. And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter. It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople. Since the topic is not on the agenda for the upcoming Council I think we may assume the existing status quo and the various practices will continue. The diversity does not disturb the unity of the Local Churches.

"Thus, the baptism of the Westerners, was sometimes regarded as valid, because it was done in the name of the Holy Trinity and was referred to the proper baptism, and sometimes as invalid, because of the many irregularities of form with which it was
clothed with the passage of time by the constantly increasing vain study of the Western Church. Hence, the Most Holy Russian Church, taking its lead from obvious reasons makes use of the Decisions of the newer Synod of Moscow under Patriarch Ioasaph of Moscow, discerning that they are contributive to the benefit of the Church in that place, whereas the Churches in the East
consider it necessary for the benefit of Orthodoxy to follow the Horos which had been issued under Cyril V.

"Since these things happen to be such, it is left to the spiritual discernment of Your Excellency and of the rest of the Synodical members to accept or reject the use of economy which another Church has upheld for more than two centuries without wavering, if, as she writes, this economy implies many benefits to the Church there and secures her from encroaching dangers.

"Whenever, then, the local orthodox Churches might be able to gather together, then, with God’s help, the desired agreement on this subject will take place, as with others as well."

(Dragas, G, The manner of reception of Roman Catholic converts into the Orthodox Church, Myriobiblos Library, 1998,
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html).

This caused a bit of hilarity around the Orthodox world and humorous articles appeared "When is a Chrismation not a Chrismation?" :-)

But it does cause confusion and consternation, particularly along the fault line where Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts coexist. I guess that's where I'm.coming from, figuratively and literally.

I don't see any reason for "confusion and consternation along the fault line where Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts coexist." In these countries (Russia, Ukraine etc.) I think it would be safe to say the universal Orthodox practice is *not* to baptize.

It becomes a problem when certain monastic communities on Athos and elsewhere refuse to recognize such receptions of former Eastern and Roman Catholics and this, albeit limited issue, is used to spread dissension and confusion by the enemies of the church. I agree for most, it's not an issue, but it was raised in the OP. Also here in the states, where Slavic practice has not been to rebaptize but when the convert, usually with spouse, move and run into a hyperdoxing priest, trouble breaks out.

Quite a few years ago the bishops of SCOBA issued a proclamation stopping the baptism of Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.

Since the union with Moscow in 2007, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is rapidly abandoning its practice (commenced in 1972) of baptizing all converts and is returning to traditional Russian practices in this area.

If anyone is interested in the facts about what the current practice is in the Russian Orthodox Church regarding reception of converts, I would direct them to the Official Page of the Missionary Department of the Diocese of Moscow (being the Patriarch's Diocese, this is unquestionably normative for the entire Russian Orthodox Church

http://infomissia.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=251:prisoedinn

The original is, of course, in Russian. It contains a very brief theological and historical justification for the practices of the Russian Church, and includes a handy chart which shows which denominations are to be received in which way.

For those who do not read Russian, here is a synopsis

Roman Catholic Church

a. If confirmed, through repentance, 3rd rite
b. If not confirmed,through Chrismation, 2nd rite

Armenian Apostolic Church,through repentance, 3rd rite

Old Believers

a. Belokrinitskaya, through repentance, 3rd rite
b. Priestless, through Chrismation, 2nd rite

Anglicanism, through Chrismation, 2nd rite

Lutheranism, through Chrismation, 2nd rite

Presbyterian , through Chrismation, 2nd rite

Evangelical Christian Baptists,through Chrismation, 2nd rite

Various dissident communities (assuming that the person received the sacrament
of baptism there), through Chrismation, 2nd rite

Jehovah’s Witnesses,through Baptism, 1st rite

Judaism, through Baptism,1st rite

Islam,through Baptism, 1st rite

Pagans, through Baptism, 1st rite

(Then follows a description of how each of these Rites is performed, according
to the Supplementary Book of Needs (Trebnik) of the Russian Orthodox Church.)
_____________________
Hierom.Ambrose

I know, but the problem lies with clergy, who being American, often "do their own thing," to the consternation of their Bishops ( I know as I recall listening to the late Metropolitan Nicholas complain in at length to my father about that problem over the years, and he was not alone in that regard.)

So perhaps it's more an issue of clerical discipline, but still a problem.

(Glad to hear from.you, one of your old haunts is engaged in an ongoing debate about its rules. Since you and several others left, things are "different" there. Regards and Many Years on this, the Feast of Pokrov!)