www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Catholics becoming Orthodox

DavidG --

"Years ago there was one Orthodox way for everyone and the only differences were ethnic ones."

That's not really the case. History tells us, for example, that the Greeks received converts by chrismation until after the Melkite Schism, when the more strict approach of (re)-baptism became normative for the Greek Church. At the same time, the Russian Church was receiving converts by chrismation, as the service books from the 18th and 19th centuries indicate. There has been, in practice, a lot of diversity in this particular area.

"It really bothers me that there are so many different Orthodox ways of doing things."

Hmm. We are a communion of local churches, and each of our local churches as its own way of doing things. It seems to me, at least, that this implies local variations. The matter of how a convert is to be received should be properly up to the local church in question.

"But then about six months later he got upset with our pastor about the way he was doing something and left and joined a ROCOR parish."

Well, there you go. That says more about the individual than it does anything else, ISTM.

"is it that we in the OCA accepted the Roman Catholic baptism as valid while another Orthodox jurisdiction believed that his Roman Catholic baptism was false?"

Ah, but that's not what the OCA does. The OCA doesn't "accept your RC baptism as valid" - rather, it chrismates, thereby granting the gift of the Holy Spirit, who fills all of one's prior sacramental life with grace -- whether one's baptism or one's marriage. It's not a question of validity, but rather a question of how one is to be received, and an exercise of "economy". The "normative" way for newcomers to enter the Church of Christ is through baptism. Deviations from this can be made in certain cases in an exercise of economy -- and that is what is done for converts from the Roman Catholic Church and some other Western confessions. The ROCOR simply holds to the stricter view, and does not apply economy in this case -- again, that's a matter for the local church to decide, ISTM.

"How is it that we can say we have unity of faith with those Orthodox who call us heritics for using the new calendar?"

I would say that, from the perspective of those Orthodox, there isn't unity of faith between us and them, which is why they won't communicate us in their churches. But you're talking about a tiny fraction in the grand scheme of things.

Brendan

Alex --

My point is that someone like you should *not* become Orthodox -- that's all. I think you probably agree with that as well.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Then you appear to be in agreement with the rest of Orthodoxy . . .

I guess I am rather hopeless

God bless!

Alex

I couldn't have said it better myself, Marshall.

I know I've raised this point before, but I'll raise it again, since a) I learned of it here, and b) I still don't know the answer.

The Coptic Orthodox Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church are two Oriental Orthodox Churches in full communion with each other. It is the official policy of the SOC to recognise Roman Catholic sacraments, to the point where, in cases of necessity, a limited intercommunion is allowed. Meanwhile, on the other side of Mount Sinai, the Coptic Orthodox Church's official policy is that they don't recognise the "grace-filled" nature of RC sacraments...RC converts to the Coptic Orthodox Church have to be re-baptised. RC converts to the Syrian Orthodox Church only have to confess and recite the Creed.

If baptism is the first of the sacraments and the necessary one in order to receive the others, and a RC converts to the SOC, he doesn't get re-baptised, since the SOC recognises RC sacraments. He just confesses and recites the Creed, and then he's good as gold, can receive the sacraments, etc. Now if he goes to a Coptic parish one Sunday, being Syrian Orthodox, he should theoretically be allowed to receive the sacraments. But according to the Coptic Church, he hasn't even been properly baptised, so he shouldn't be able to receive the sacraments, by that logic. And yet, he is in communion with the Copts by being a Syrian.

Welcome to the wide world of Orthodoxy, I suppose.

But really, how is one supposed to make sense of such a situation? I believe that the RCC has valid sacraments, and so I believe regarding the Orthodox. For the part of the SOC, they believe the same thing. But what's really going on here? How can this make sense?

Brendan said:


Not to be obtuse (or at least more obtuse than usual), there seems to be a bit of a shell game going on here. You claim that the issue is not validity of a previous Baptism, but the mode of reception. Yet any use of economy must have some kind of implicit judgment about the validity of the original sacraments. Does it make any theological sense to forego Orthodox baptism if there are doubts about the validity of the original sacrament? And if the economy is not applied uniformly wihtin a given Orthodox community (i.e., some Catholics may be admitted without re-Baptism, while others must be re-Baptised), that means that the original Baptismal efficacy is a sometimes thing, which again doesn't make much theological sense to me.

I can live with variations in practice from one Orthodox community to another, but I still don't understand how judgments about validity can be avoided.

I'm not sure that the real question is 'validity' of baptism; I think the variations in how someone is received into Orthodoxy (or Roman Catholicism, for that matter) depends more upon the socio-political climate obtaining at that time.

I can't imagine a Ukrainian Orthodox priest mandating the rebaptism of a Ukrainian Catholic person. Maybe an RC, and more likely a Protestant, but not one of the 'clan'.

I think this is true as evidenced by the variations that have developed over time in the various communities. These changes had to have been driven by some paradigm. And my suspicion is that it was politics.

Blessings!

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

Historically, the Ukrainian Catholic AND Orthodox Churches baptised by pouring, not immersion.

The Russian Church had one politcy with respect to Ukrainian Orthodox who went to the Russian Church when they were in Russia and, that is, "re-baptize" since baptism by pouring or sprinkling was invalid.

So not only Eastern Catholics were rebaptised.

Politics? D'ya think?

Alex

[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Alex,

Wow your original response to my question about conscience was very helpful.

I might just become Eastern Catholic. Every pitch I throw, you knock out of the park.

love in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Forgive me a sinner, Friend in Christ!

I will spend this Lent praying for you and for your reception into the Eastern Catholic Church!

May God richly bless you and your family, surround you with His Love and Peace through His Grace, now and always!

Forgive me a sinner,

Alex