Normative baptism and conversion in the Orthodox Church

Discussion · 22

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

• − opinion#2871 37 likes at the source

  Wasn't St Seraphim Rose received by Chrismation?

  • − opinion#2874 22 likes at the source

    Yes, he was Methodist, baptized by single immersion, and ROCOR decided he should be received by Chrismation. The church decides who needs rebaptism and who needs Chrismation, and ultimately the Holy Spirit is the one who gives the grace. We aren't Pharisees.
  • − opinion#2875 1 likes at the source

    This is exactly what we're saying.
  • − opinion#2876

    But but the thief on the cross level argument.
  • − opinion#2877 3 likes at the source

    I mean not really, because it's literally backed by Jerusalem 1672, St. Philaret of Moscow, St. Augustine, Pope St. Stephen, St. Peter Mogila, etc. that we don't rebaptize heretics or schismatics if they retained proper matter, form and intent. 'Moreover, we reject as something abominable and pernicious the notion that when faith is weak the integrity of the Mystery is impaired. For heretics who renounce their heresy and join the Catholic Church are received by the Church; although they received their valid Baptism with weakness of faith. Wherefore, when they afterwards become possessed of the perfect faith, they are not again baptized.' Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, Decree 15 of 1672.
  • − opinion#2878

    Dositheus is arguing that weakness of faith doesn't invalidate a properly administered baptism. Roman Catholic baptism doesn't meet the Church's requirements for valid baptism. Constantinople in 1755 explicitly required Latins to be baptized, so quoting Dositheus just presupposes your interpretation.
  • − opinion#2879 6 likes at the source

    If you'd actually read Bl. Dositheos' other works, he specifically addresses the Latins and says the only reason they're unbaptized is because they sprinkle unnecessarily and lack triple immersion and emersion, which is exactly what Constantinople 1755 says. Further, it declares there are acceptable baptisms if done according to the command of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. It makes clear triple immersion and emersion, along with each immersion invoking the name of one of the divine hypostases, and if done any other fashion it was rejected. It's not a declaration that any and all baptisms outside the Church are universally denied. Larp more.
  • − opinion#2880

    Youre proving my point. Constantinople 1755 explicitly rejects the Latin baptismal practice, and you cant just appeal to exceptions in other writings to override what the council actually decreed. The burden is on you to demonstrate why Roman Catholic baptism should be accepted, not on me to prove that every baptism outside the Church is automatically invalid.
• − opinion#2873 37 likes at the source

  Incoming latinizers who don't understand the donatist heresy.

  • − opinion#2881 3 likes at the source

    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. Constantinople 1, canon 5.
  • − opinion#2882 1 likes at the source

    Ive spoken to them, they are actually very kind and approachable and do not use their authority as a shield. They will openly discuss these topics and explain to you their teachings. This is not the council of Florence lol.
  • − opinion#2883 2 likes at the source

    St. Basil for example offered varying guidance on this question, distinguishing between different categories of those separated from the Church and acknowledging differing practices of reception. There is genuine patristic and canonical nuance here, and recognizing that nuance or trusting the legitimate authority of our bishops is not inherently Latinizing. Youve asked whether someone would follow their bishop if he were wrong. Obviously, obedience isnt absolute, but where exactly do we draw that line? If were adjudicating every canonical and pastoral decision of our bishops against our own interpretation of the Fathers, at what point have we made ourselves the final arbiters of orthopraxy? The Church explicitly provides for situational reception by chrismation. One can reasonably advocate for greater rigor in particular circumstances without declaring those received otherwise deficient or dismissing those who trust their bishops as Latinizers. Im not trying to call you out or start an argument, but the maximally rigorist position leads to total Akribeia and ultimately undercuts episcopal authority as trustworthy.
• − opinion#2872 35 likes at the source

  As a lifelong Roman Catholic who is now an Orthodox Catechumen, I'll be asking for baptism.

  • − opinion#2884 2 likes at the source

    u can ask doesnt mean they will
  • − opinion#2885 1 likes at the source

    theyre going to ask you why, make sure youre ready for the line of questioning
  • − opinion#2886

    He can go to a monastery and get baptized.
• − opinion#2868 7 likes at the source

  I'll take a universal synod and the Fathers over the rigorist rebaptism idea. 'Moreover, we reject as something abominable and pernicious the notion that when faith is weak the integrity of the Mystery is impaired. For heretics who renounce their heresy and join the Catholic Church are received by the Church; although they received their valid Baptism with weakness of faith. Wherefore, when they afterwards become possessed of the perfect faith, they are not again baptized.' Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, Decree 15 of 1672.
• − opinion#2866 6 likes at the source

  I guess St. Seraphim Rose, St. Elizabeth, St. Alexandra, St. Dismas and the other martyrs should be de-canonized then. Same for the ones received through confession and vesting only.
• − opinion#2869 5 likes at the source

  'Blessed Augustine argues against the Donatists, but not against Saint Cyprian. He defends the unity of the Church with the same ardent zeal with which the holy hierarch of Carthage championed it. Augustine calls the instigators of schism enemies of the Church. Like Saint Cyprian, he knows that there is no salvation outside the Church: "Everything can be possessed outside the Church except salvation. One can possess the Sacraments … the Gospel … faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and preach it; but nowhere except in the Catholic Church can salvation be found."54 .... The sacraments are performed even in schism, and through these sacraments divine grace is bestowed, but in schism it does not save. In schism, the sacraments are valid, genuine, and real, but illicit (illicita), unlawful, and inefficacious (non efficacia), for "to possess the Sacraments" and "to possess the Sacraments to one's benefit" are not the same thing: "It is one thing not to possess them; another to possess them to one's destruction (pernitiose); and another to possess them salvifically (salubriter)."57 Footnotes: [50] Migne, Patrologia Latina (PL), vol. 43, col. 444. [54] Ibid., col. 695. [57] Ibid., col. 71., Fr. Vladislav Tsypin, "On the Question of the Boundaries of the Church," in Theological Works: Jubilee Collection Commemorating 300 Years of the Moscow Theological Academy (1685-1985)…
• − opinion#2870 3 likes at the source

  I was baptized as a Non-denominational in May 2024. On Nov 8 I'll officially be baptized as an Orthodox Christian, since my Non-denominational church only baptized me in the Name of Jesus. Can't wait for this new journey I'll be on ☦️
• − opinion#2867 2 likes at the source

  'The old authorities decided to accept that baptism which in nowise errs from the faith. Thus they used the names of heresies, of schisms, and of unlawful congregations. By heresies they meant men who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith; by schisms men who had separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution; by unlawful congregations gatherings held by disorderly presbyters or bishops or by uninstructed laymen. As, for instance, if a man be convicted of crime, and prohibited from discharging ministerial functions, and then refuses to submit to the canons, but arrogates to himself episcopal and ministerial rights, and persons leave the Catholic Church and join him, this is unlawful assembly. To disagree with members of the Church about repentance, is schism. Instances of heresy are those of the Manichæans, of the Valentinians, of the Marcionites, and of these Pepuzenes; for with them there comes in at once their disagreement concerning the actual faith in God. So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they still belonged to the Church.' St. Basil letter 188 s.1, To Amphilocius, concerning the canon.
• − opinion#2865

  Personally I'd rather be baptized than chrismated. But historically this is Orthodox practice, is it not? The Council of Constantinople (1484) seems to establish it as standard historical practice unless I'm missing something? I normally love your takes but this is something that has genuinely existed in the church at the highest level for a long time, and millions of genuine faithful have done it throughout history. This is different from the modern phenomena of ecumenism and globalism. I just don't get why we should take your word over that history. (And I say this as someone who agrees with 90% of your posts and is anti-ecumenism.) Your replies in the comments have also been short, dismissive, and borderline namecalling. This might be one of your first misses, and I say that as someone who genuinely wants to side with the 'always baptize' position in this debate.