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

"Professor Wróblewski then spoke of his desire to be incorporated in the Church in the manner defined by the sacred Canons - that is, the Apostolic ones, especially the 46th, also those of the Ecumenical Councils, as well as the canonical epistles of Saint Basil the Great. In Poland, on account of the prevalence of the ecclesiology of Ecumenism and the (altered, as he wrote) "baptismal theology", it was not possible for him to be accepted through baptism, inasmuch as the incorporation through Chrismation is becoming more and more scarce there, and incorporation into Orthodoxy is being replaced from the year 2000 onwards, by Confession and Holy Communion alone".

http://www.oodegr.com/english/empeiries/baptism_pawel_wroblewski.htm

DOCUMENTS OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
(THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE)
A.D. 381
translated by Henry R. Percival, 1899.
Canon VII
Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies -- for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians: -- all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/orthodoxy/canonlaw/canons2econcileGB.htm

CANONS OF THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
Translated by Henry R. Percival and John Fulton.
Canon XIX
Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.

http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/orthodoxy/canonlaw/canons1erconcileGB.htm

Is there a question here?

When St. Alexis Toth took his congregation in Minneapolis to Orthodoxy under the Church of Russia and a fair number of other Greek Catholic congregations followed suit (including my mother in law's family and some of my mother's family) and when Bishop Orestes Chornock, of thrice blessed memory, took his followers to Orthodoxy (including all of my grandparents and the rest of my immediate family and my wife's dad's family) under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, neither Moscow nor Constantinople required rebaptism or any other readministration of Holy Orders.

I have heard that some Athonite communities do not recognize these actions, but I was unaware that this practice is widespread outside of Athos. It is certainly contrary to the agreed upon statements of the Ecumenical Dialogues between some of the Orthodox and Rome. (Yes, it does point out the inability of us Orthodox to agree upon many details while we claim a unity of faith.....so please don't point out the need for a centralized authority...heard that one before over the years.....)

(As an aside, a dear friend of our family was the late Rev. Hilarion Wroblewski, an Orthodox priest of the Ukrainian Diocese under Bishop Bohdan. He was pastor of a small parish in Freeland, PA for many years and was a most remarkable, well educated and lovely man.He was well known as a banquet speaker and humorist at numerous church functions in northeast Pennsylvania through the 1970.s Eternal Memory. )

After contacting the Orthodox Bishop Vladimir who was residing in San Francisco, Father Toth traveled there and was received into the Orthodox Faith by the bishop. An eyewitness of this event, the parish choir director Paul Zaichenko wrote:

In the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of San Francisco, Bishop Vladimir is serving the Divine Liturgy. The choir, under my direction, is singing splendidly. In the center of the church stands a stranger. He is clean shaven, with a short military haircut. He wears a cassock, fastened with a row of buttons, and around his waist is tied a wide purple sash...All eyes are on him, but no one knows who the stranger is. Bishop Vladimir, in all his vestments, comes forward from the altar, holding the Bible and the cross. According to the Church ritual, the stranger is accepted into the Orthodox faith. In a loud voice, he renounces papism and enters the fold of the Holy Orthodox Church. At that moment his face lights up with an internal light. This new convert was Father Alexis Toth, young, handsome, and energetic...

http://www.acrod.org/readingroom/saints/stalexistoth

What about New Martyr St. Gorazd (Pavlik), Bishop of Prague?

That was my point, I know that history. The belief by some Orthodox that Catholic baptism is ineffective is troublesome to me on a personal level for a variety of reasons.

What about father Seraphim of Platina (Rose)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_Rose

Rose's opposition to Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement, and his advocacy of the contentious "toll house teaching" led him into conflict with some notable figures in 20th-century Orthodoxy, and he remains controversial in some quarters even after his sudden death from an undiagnosed intestinal disorder in 1982.

Baptized in the Methodist Church when he was 14 years old, Rose later rejected Christianity for atheism.

In 1962, Rose was received into the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in San Francisco.

In his ministry, Rose spoke frequently of an "Orthodoxy of the Heart," which he saw as increasingly absent in American ecclesiastical life. He also spoke of the need for warmth and kindness of the spirit, especially when dealing with those with whom one disagreed, an increasing problem in American Orthodoxy and its conflict between so-called "traditionalists" and "modernists."

Although some Orthodox Christians asserted that the so-called "red" church had forfeited legitimacy by cooperating with the communist government, Rose disagreed. While wholeheartedly disapproving of the close relations between the Moscow church and the country's communist masters, Rose insisted that it was still legitimate and possessed of valid sacraments.

A cause for Fr. Seraphim's canonization was begun soon after his burial. He currently awaits canonization into sainthood by an Orthodox synod, and his grave at St. Herman's monastery has become a popular site for pilgrimages.

The St. Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina is now a part of the Western America diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Fr. Seraphim Rose on the Rites Used to Receive Converts

http://solzemli.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/fr-seraphim-rose-on-the-rites-used-to-receive-converts/

The following is a letter which was written by Fr. Seraphim Rose to Fr. Alexey Young—now Hieromonk Ambrose. It was on the problem of certain people not accepting converts who were received into the Orthodox Church through either chrismation or confession, but insisted that all must be re-baptized.

Jan. 28/Feb.10, 1976
An example: she is horrified that T was received into the Church [from Roman Catholicism] without baptism or chrismation. “That’s wrong,” she says. But we see nothing particularly wrong with it; that is for the priest and the bishop to decide, and it is not our (or even more, her) business. The rite by which he was received has longed been approved by the church out of economy, and probably in this case it was the best way, because T might have hesitated much more at being baptized. The Church’s condescension here was wise. But L would like someone “to read Vladika Anthony the decree of the Sobor” [on this subject]. My dear, he was there, composing the decree, which explicitly gives the bishop permission to use economy when he wishes! We don’t like this attitude at all, because it introduces totally unnecessary disturbance into the church atmosphere. And if she is going to tell T now that he is not “really” a member of the Orthodox Church, she can do untold harm to a soul.

L was very pleased that Q was baptized [after having been a member of the Russian Church Abroad already for several years]: Finally he did it “right”! But we are not pleased at all, seeing in this a sign of great spiritual immaturity on his part and a narrow fanaticism on the part of those who approve. Saint Basil the Great refused to baptize a man who doubted the validity of his baptism, precisely because he had already received communion for many years and it was too late to doubt then that he was a member of Christ’s Church! In the case of our converts, it’s obvious that those who insist or are talked into receiving baptism after already being a member of the Church are trying, out of a feeling of insecurity, to receive something which the Sacrament does not give: psychological security, a making up for their past failures while already Orthodox, a belonging to the “club” of those who are “right,” an automatic spiritual “correctness.” But this act casts doubt on the Church and her ministers. If the priest or bishop who receives such people were wrong (and so wrong that the whole act of reception must be done over again!), a sort of Church within the Church is created, a clique which, by contrast to “most bishops and priests,” is always “right.” And of course, that is our big problem today—and even more in the days ahead. It is very difficult to fight this, because they offer “clear and simple” answers to every question, and our insecure converts find this the answer to their needs.

At times we would like to think that the whole “Fr. Panteleimon problem” in our Church is just a matter of differing emphasis which, in the end, will not be so terribly important. But the more we observe, the more we come to think that it is much more serious than that, that in fact that an “orthodox sectarianism” is being formed at that expense of our simple people. Therefore, those who are aware of all this must be “zealots according to knowledge.” The Church has survived worse temptations in the past, but we fear for our converts lest in their simplicity they be led into a sect and out of the Church.

God is with us! We must go forward in faith.”

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Irenikon/conversations/topics/22919

"On Sunday, February 12/25th, 1962, the commemoration day of his
patron St. Eugene of Alexandria, Eugene was received into the Church.
The service was performed by an archpriest of the Russian Church
Abroad, Fr. Nicholas Dombrovsky, in the San Francisco "Joy of All Who
Sorrow" Cathedral. Fr. Nicholas had been instructed by Archbishop
Tikhon to receive Eugene through the Sacrament of Christmation."

I am familiar with the debate, and as you correctly state, Fr. Rose's cause remains controversial within many quarters of the Orthodox Church although he is generally a respected figure, not all believe in his glorification.

However, again I ask - do you have a question? No doubt there is a variety of opinion within some Orthodox quarters on the issues of baptismal validity of the non-Orthodox - the best answer is - 'It depends."

From my point of view the problem here is not the variety of opinions among our Orthodox brethern about the validity of the sacraments celebrated by non Orthodox priests or bishops, the point is How can an Orthodox bishop administer the sacraments of baptism and chrismation to 1) a convert from the Catholic Church or from some protestant community baptised in water in the name of the Most Holy Trinity or, even worse, 2) to someone who has been already chrismated by and Orthodox priest or bishop and has already received the sacraments of salvation administered by Orthodox clergy and, at the same time, to be, directly or undirectly, in full communion 3) with other bishops who do not do the same (1, 2) or, even worse, (4) were never baptised by an Orthodox priest or bishop (we have some of them among the current members of the synod of the Orthodox Church in America), and (5) with Churches that venerate as saints of the Chrurch Christians that were never baptised by an Orthodox priest or bishop? Can an Orthodox bishop who remains in full communion with other bishops who, from his own point of view, are not Orthodox any more because what they teach is not what the Church teaches or because they are clearly violating the canons of the Orthodox Church be considered Orthodox? Coherence is the pint here.

^^ I, and many other Orthodox have a real problem with such teachings for both theological and personal reasons.

If you think that the Catholic church is like the hypothetical "herd of cats" with a Pope at the top playing the shepherd's tole, sometimes we Orthodox, while appearing superficially coherent liturgically, often appear to be more like herds of cats who occasionaly eat their shepherds.

Here is a good summary of the issue from the point of view of the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation.
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

It points out in great detail the inconsistencies within the discipline of both the Roman and the Orthodox worlds.

A good summary of the issue from the point of view of the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation...with a lot of place for "Greek-speaking Orthodoxy" (3 times) positions about the issue and very litle for those of the "East Slavic Orthodox churches" (2 times) with two very interesting recomendations (adressed, if I am not wrong, basically, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and "Greek-speaking Orthodoxy").

1484
Synod of Constantinople


1755
Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the reception of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism.

1800
Nicodemus and the Pedalion

1667

It is this provision of Constantinople in 1484, together with Canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, which the Council of Moscow in 1667 invokes in its decree forbidding the rebaptism of Catholics, a decree that has remained authoritative in the East Slavic Orthodox churches to the present day.

Recommendation

3. That the Patriarchate of Constantinople formally withdraw its decree on rebaptism of 1755;

4. That the Orthodox churches declare that the Orthodox reception of Catholics by chrismation does not constitute a repetition of any part of their sacramental initiation;