Rebaptism?

[Dust and Ashes]

I didn't want to further derail the denominations thread but it did get me to thinking. What if, hypothetically, someone is received by chrismation and attends a parish for several years, receiving the Eucharist then moves to a very traditional parish and the priest insists that their baptism was invalid and refuses to commune them unless they are "properly baptised?"

What would that mean to the person who has, apparently, been receiving the Holy Mysteries illicitly? I'm not trying to submarine the issue of baptism but I thought about this and am honestly curious.

[buzuxi02]

I'm not sure by what you mean illicitly. If one believes you need to be re-baptised that means he never considered it valid and by default you were never christian and/or Orthodox.

[Dust and Ashes]

I'm not sure by what you mean illicitly. If one believes you need to be re-baptised that means he never considered it valid and by default you were never christian and/or Orthodox.

Fr. A receives you by chrismation and serves you the Holy Mysteries for 5 years at his parish. You move 500 miles away and begin attending Fr. B's parish. Fr. B insists that your baptism was not valid because it was not Orthodox and insists you be rebaptised before he will commune you. Obviously Fr. A considers you Orthodox but Fr. B doesn't. Should you submit to being rebaptised by Fr. B? If so, what does that mean WRT all the times you received Communion before your rebaptism?

[Akathist]

I highly doubt that any Priest would require a baptism of someone who had been brought into the Orthdox Chruch by any canonical group even if they were never baptised upon their conversion. The Chrismation would complete anything incomplete during the conversion process.

That said, I am also not convinced that when I was baptised upon conversion that the message was that I had never been a Christian up to that point, or that my family were not Christian's either. It was simply to bring me into the Orthodox Church, to give me the fullness of the process.

[Dust and Ashes]

A young man at our mother parish spent a year on Mt. Athos. Prior to that, he was recieved by chrismation and when he left for Greece, our priest warned him not to let the monks rebaptise him. I took it that he was concerned they might try to do just that or he would not have told him that.

[buzuxi02]

A young man at our mother parish spent a year on Mt. Athos. Prior to that, he was recieved by chrismation and when he left for Greece, our priest warned him not to let the monks rebaptise him. I took it that he was concerned they might try to do just that or he would not have told him that.


ohhh, probably because the traditionalists strictly apply the canons. The canons only allow chrismation (or just a confession and renunciation of heresies)when the proper form is followed which is a trinitarian formula AND triple immersion. Some also insist that this economia applies to those that were once part of a sect which had origins and later broke from the Church such as the assyrians and monophysites etc.
Jerusalem follows this practise but wont re-baptise if one was recieved by chrismation only by a canonical church.

[Akathist]

ohhh, probably because the traditionalists strictly apply the canons. The canons only allow chrismation (or just a confession and renunciation of heresies)when the proper form is followed which is a trinitarian formula AND triple immersion. Some also insist that this economia applies to those that were once part of a sect which had origins and later broke from the Church such as the assyrians and monophysites etc.
Jerusalem follows this practise but wont re-baptise if one was recieved by chrismation only by a canonical church.

What you say here is what was explained to me.

My situation was a bit unusual too. My infant baptism was trinitarian without immersion (a sprinkling). My adult baptism was NOT trinitarian but had triple immersion. (Pentecostal Church)

Given this wierdness, I asked to have a new baptism considered but also said I would do as the Bishop wanted. He said I could be baptised upon conversion.

of the 11 adults who came into the church, only two of us were baptised. The other one had never been baptised. Some of the other ones had only had a sprinkling but it was trinitarian. The Christmation took care of anything that might have been lacking.

[Emmanuel-A]

A lot of people in my parish (ROC MP) who formerly were roman catholics and thus were accepted in the Church through penance and confession of Faith (that's the MP common practice), when travelling to Greece, were refused communion in some places (not everywhere fortunately) because they were not seen as Orthodox.

If you read the ROCOR document (1972, I think) about their change in reception practices, they mention this problem among the reasons for a larger use of Acribeia (ie reception through baptism in most cases).

[ma2000]

Father Ephraim from Vatopedi said in an interview that if a former non-Orthodox was received through Chrismation somewhere, they (the monks from Vatopedi) acknowledge him as an Orthodox and he may receive Eucharist. But if that person comes to them and wants to convert to Orthodoxy, they rebaptize him.

[rusmeister]

This smells of rule-pushing. I think that God is a little more merciful than that.

[Kristos]

How would this even come up? Sounds like a bunch of lawyer mumbo jumbo to me. You could argue that the baptism was done through economy - afterall, I don't have a chrismation record, I have a baptismal record from GOARCH eventhough I was not actually, physically re-baptized.

[Dust and Ashes]

How would this even come up? Sounds like a bunch of lawyer mumbo jumbo to me. You could argue that the baptism was done through economy - afterall, I don't have a chrismation record, I have a baptismal record from GOARCH eventhough I was not actually, physically re-baptized.

Some people have been refused communion because they were received by chrismation only. If they began attending a parish that wouldn't commune them for that reason, it would seem the fix would be to let the priest rebaptise them so they could receive at that parish. Which led me to wonder what that would imply about the time before they were rebaptised and all the times they received the Eucharist before they were rebaptised. Or would it make a difference at all? Would it just be a formality to satisfy the person's new priest?

[MichaelArchangelos]

There are no Sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. Therefore, baptism outside the Orthodox Church (which is often sprinkling or pouring) is no baptism at all. The Greek word "Baptizo" means "I immerse" or "I dip" - not "I sprinkle" or "I pour".

For more information on this topic, see Baptism and the Reception of Converts (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx)

[choirfiend]

Baptism is never a formality. And one should never undertake the reception of a sacrament (or any action) just to satisfy one's priest.

If a person was received into the Orthodox Church through whatever canonical method (baptism, chrismation which fulfills an empty baptismal rite, or confession) and the reception of the Eucharist and participation in the sacramental life of the Church, and they began attending a parish where the new priest would not allow them to commune, then the new priest would be in error--for disputing the authority of the bishop under whom you were received. No other idle speculation about hypotheticals which cause stumbling blocks is necessary. The priest would be in error, and that is all.

[choirfiend]

Careful careful where you deny any grace (even to the point of being sacramental) outside of the Church. That is for the Holy Spirit to be in charge of, not you, and you don't want to end up blaspheming the Holy Spirit in a misguided attempt to preserve His holiness.

Also careful with Orthodoxinfo. It has an agenda, and is heavily biased. In the Church, there have been multiple ways to receive converts throughout history, typically depending upon the situation of the convert. Since you are extremely young in the faith, it would be wise to postpone making declarative statements about the Orthodox Church, her history and practices--chances are, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Dust and Ashes]

Baptism is never a formality. And one should never undertake the reception of a sacrament (or any action) just to satisfy one's priest.

If a person was received into the Orthodox Church through whatever canonical method (baptism, chrismation which fulfills an empty baptismal rite, or confession) and the reception of the Eucharist and participation in the sacramental life of the Church, and they began attending a parish where the new priest would not allow them to commune, then the new priest would be in error--for disputing the authority of the bishop under whom you were received. No other idle speculation about hypotheticals which cause stumbling blocks is necessary. The priest would be in error, and that is all.

Thank you for addressing it so directly. :thumbsup:

[jckstraw72]

the Church has used differnet practices in different times and places. nowadays i guess it depends on your stance towards ecumenism -- i think someone already said this, but Athonites will rebaptize.

[rusmeister]

Choirfiend is right.

This is something that should be decided once and for all for all Orthodox at an ecumenical Council, imo. Most topics may have degrees of economia to them, but this is one that everybody should be flat on - it's a salvific issue, and should have dogma behind it.

[choirfiend]

They HAVE decided this issue at councils (even, I believe, EC). The results are different practices for different convert backgrounds. This application (accepting the form of the rite of trinitarian baptism which is fulfilled by reception through Chrismation and Communion and baptizing others whose rite did not meet Orthodox criteria) IS the Orthodox dogmatic practice. The tricky part is how this practice is applied--and THAT is up to the Bishops, as are all matters of application. Us nosy nancies should butt out and let the bishops do their work.
Athonites have some interesting practices that stem from their extreme isolation from the rest of the Church until recent times. The witness of the practice of the Church elsewhere is at least equally valid, if not more so, because of its living, breathing tradition.

[buzuxi02]

The Orthodox Church should simply follow the canons instead of being lazy and not enforcing them, using the excuse that its up to the bishop to decide..

The canons require (re)baptism if the proper form is not followed which is both Baptism in the trinitarian formula and triple immersion.
The canons allow for chrismation and or a confession of Faith only from groups that have split from Orthodoxy after the Second ecumenical council. This is because by accepting the first 2 councils (the teaching of the Nicene Creed) they have the same understanding of the Triune God. So they follow the same form and have the same apostolic understanding concerning the Trinity. We cant say protestants have the same understanding of the Trinity nor do they follow the proper apostolic form nor have they ever had apostolic succession.

Thus only the orientals and nestorians can be recieved by chrismation or confession of faith only. The RC cannot since they only sprinkle.
The reason the russians accept the RC without chrismation is because of what George Florovosky refered to as the 300 years of latin captivity of the Russian Church.
Serbia should go back to immersion as well, they sometimes sprinkle.
Sprinkling of water is very problematic.

For instance if an infant in case of emergency is baptised using air-baptism, if the infant survives, it will need to be baptised, the air baptism would be null and void, as if it never took place.

On the other hand if one is given an emergency baptism (of the bed ridden) by sprinkling of water, and he survives, the canon says that person cannot be accepted into the priesthood (canon 12 of NeoCeasaria 315 a.d.)

Following the canons and actually having them on display for the laity to see and read would clear up the confusion about what the Church believes considering heterodox baptism as well. Its actually quite simple but once again the ecumenists dont want it that way.

[Dust and Ashes]

The Orthodox Church should simply follow the canons instead of being lazy and not enforcing them, using the excuse that its up to the bishop to decide..

The canons require (re)baptism if the proper form is not followed which is both Baptism in the trinitarian formula and triple immersion.
The canons allow for chrismation and or a confession of Faith only from groups that have split from Orthodoxy after the Second ecumenical council. This is because by accepting the first 2 councils (the teaching of the Nicene Creed) they have the same understanding of the Triune God. So they follow the same form and have the same apostolic understanding concerning the Trinity. We cant say protestants have the same understanding of the Trinity nor do they follow the proper apostolic form nor have they ever had apostolic succession.

Thus only the orientals and nestorians can be recieved by chrismation or confession of faith only. The RC cannot since they only sprinkle.
The reason the russians accept the RC without chrismation is because of what George Florovosky refered to as the 300 years of latin captivity of the Russian Church.
Serbia should go back to immersion as well, they sometimes sprinkle.
Sprinkling of water is very problematic.

For instance if an infant in case of emergency is baptised using air-baptism, if the infant survives, it will need to be baptised, the air baptism would be null and void, as if it never took place.

On the other hand if one is given an emergency baptism (of the bed ridden) by sprinkling of water, and he survives, the canon says that person cannot be accepted into the priesthood (canon 12 of NeoCeasaria 315 a.d.)

Following the canons and actually having them on display for the laity to see and read would clear up the confusion about what the Church believes considering heterodox baptism as well. Its actually quite simple but once again the ecumenists dont want it that way.

That's all well and good and I agree with you, for what that's worth, but you are addressing the cause of the problem I'm asking about and not the problem itself. My question isn't about what should be done to prevent it from happening but what could/should be done, if anything, where it has happened. Should someone received in such a way be concerned about their place in the Church? Should they allow/request/demand rebaptism? If so, what does that say about the time they have already spent receiving communion.

I know none of us are bishops and I'm not seeking information to help me make a decision about anything, I'm just asking for opinions on something that has piqued curiosity recently.

[jckstraw72]

Should someone received in such a way be concerned about their place in the Church? Should they allow/request/demand rebaptism? If so, what does that say about the time they have already spent receiving communion.

Fr. Seraphim Rose was received by Chrismation and later wished he had received an Orthodox baptism, but I don't know if it caused him any real problems -- and he also didnt have to be rebaptized later, so i dont know about that.

[choirfiend]

Beware, too, the seekers of the acquisition of "experiences." When Chrismation fulfills a prior rite of baptism, one has received an Orthodox baptism. The only thing missing is the memory of the experience, which is something one has in common with those Orthodox who were baptized as infants. One neednt remember their baptism to have been baptised--so careful, those who would seek the "experience" of baptism in order to really "feel" Orthodox.

[buzuxi02]

That's all well and good and I agree with you, for what that's worth, but you are addressing the cause of the problem I'm asking about and not the problem itself. My question isn't about what should be done to prevent it from happening but what could/should be done, if anything, where it has happened. Should someone received in such a way be concerned about their place in the Church? Should they allow/request/demand rebaptism? If so, what does that say about the time they have already spent receiving communion.

I know none of us are bishops and I'm not seeking information to help me make a decision about anything, I'm just asking for opinions on something that has piqued curiosity recently.
If a convert is brought into the Church thru Chrismation only, I do believe he has truly become an Orthodox christian and can partake of all the other sacraments. On the other hand, if a convert wonders or worse, worries about his Chrismation-only reception, then i would have to say he should be (re)baptised. The fact that he worries about it, is in itself a telltale sign that chrismation was not enough. The Orthodox baptism also has excorcism prayers as well as a vehicle of grace from its waters. Heterdox baptisms cannot claim this.

A bishop or priest may decide to recieve one either thru chrismation or baptism depending on a persons spiritual level, If one is pre-occupied with this question, or perhaps he feels a strange feeling approaching the other sacraments, then the solution is baptism in the Orthodox Church.

As i said before a second aspect for strictly following the canons , is it will clear up so much confusion within Orthodoxy as to what heterodox baptism means within Orthodoxy. Today it seems as if Orthodoxy has no clear cut answers on these things and has been improvising thru the centuries(which is not true), add the confusion of politically correct ecumenism into the mix, and no one knows the truth. This re-awakening will also make a better informed catecumenate .

[MichaelArchangelos]

My priest has told me that he will receive me by Chrismation and not re-baptize me, because he recognises my Roman Catholic baptism. However, the Roman Catholic "priest" just poured water over my head. βαπτιζω means "I immerse". Pouring is not a baptism at all. I am currently making enquiries about finding a True Orthodox priest in Australia to catechize me and my girlfriend and finally baptize us.

[Dust and Ashes]

My priest has told me that he will receive me by Chrismation and not re-baptize me, because he recognises my Roman Catholic baptism. However, the Roman Catholic "priest" just poured water over my head. βαπτιζω means "I immerse". Pouring is not a baptism at all. I am currently making enquiries about finding a True Orthodox priest in Australia to catechize me and my girlfriend and finally baptize us.

Would your priest not receive you by baptism if you asked? Just tell him that you don't feel you've been baptized and prefer to know that you have rather than struggling with doubt. I'd also be careful looking for a "True" Orthodox priest as you might find one.

My priest said that he'd prefer to receive me by chrismation only but that he would baptise me if I preferred. His main concerns were the form of the baptism I had received (Trinitarian) and that it followed a genuine commitment to follow Christ. Looking back, I wish I had insisted on being rebaptized but I'm not concerned about it. I just hope it never causes me any problems when visiting monasteries or whatnot.

I asked my priest about that and he said that he was received by chrismation only and that when he visited Mt. Athos, not only did they commune him, they asked him to concelebrate with them.

[ThePilgrim]

the Church has used differnet practices in different times and places. nowadays i guess it depends on your stance towards ecumenism -- i think someone already said this, but Athonites will rebaptize.
I don't think it depends on your stance towards ecumenism. The Church has always received certain people outside of Her borders by chrismation, and that wasn't a sign of ecumenism. There are even canons in the ecumenical councils that detail when to do this.

To be in favor of reception by chrismation in certain circumstances isn't about being ecumenical. It's about following the true historical practice of the Church.

And for what it's worth, a good friend of mine has been to Mount Athos several times and is there right now for the whole summer, and the monks there all know that he was received by chrismation, but he has never been told that he wasn't Orthodox or denied communion.

Grace and peace,
John

[ThePilgrim]

If a convert is brought into the Church thru Chrismation only, I do believe he has truly become an Orthodox christian and can partake of all the other sacraments. On the other hand, if a convert wonders or worse, worries about his Chrismation-only reception, then i would have to say he should be (re)baptised. The fact that he worries about it, is in itself a telltale sign that chrismation was not enough. The Orthodox baptism also has excorcism prayers as well as a vehicle of grace from its waters. Heterdox baptisms cannot claim this.

A bishop or priest may decide to recieve one either thru chrismation or baptism depending on a persons spiritual level, If one is pre-occupied with this question, or perhaps he feels a strange feeling approaching the other sacraments, then the solution is baptism in the Orthodox Church.

As i said before a second aspect for strictly following the canons , is it will clear up so much confusion within Orthodoxy as to what heterodox baptism means within Orthodoxy. Today it seems as if Orthodoxy has no clear cut answers on these things and has been improvising thru the centuries(which is not true), add the confusion of politically correct ecumenism into the mix, and no one knows the truth. This re-awakening will also make a better informed catecumenate .
The sacraments have never been based on feelings, and to make them so is dangerous.

If a person submitted to his bishop and was received by chrismation, it doesn't matter what he feels. Submission and obedience are more important than his feelings.

Grace and peace,
John

[ThePilgrim]

The Orthodox Church should simply follow the canons instead of being lazy and not enforcing them, using the excuse that its up to the bishop to decide..

The canons require (re)baptism if the proper form is not followed which is both Baptism in the trinitarian formula and triple immersion.
The canons allow for chrismation and or a confession of Faith only from groups that have split from Orthodoxy after the Second ecumenical council. This is because by accepting the first 2 councils (the teaching of the Nicene Creed) they have the same understanding of the Triune God. So they follow the same form and have the same apostolic understanding concerning the Trinity. We cant say protestants have the same understanding of the Trinity nor do they follow the proper apostolic form nor have they ever had apostolic succession.

Thus only the orientals and nestorians can be recieved by chrismation or confession of faith only. The RC cannot since they only sprinkle.
The reason the russians accept the RC without chrismation is because of what George Florovosky refered to as the 300 years of latin captivity of the Russian Church.
Serbia should go back to immersion as well, they sometimes sprinkle.
Sprinkling of water is very problematic.

For instance if an infant in case of emergency is baptised using air-baptism, if the infant survives, it will need to be baptised, the air baptism would be null and void, as if it never took place.

On the other hand if one is given an emergency baptism (of the bed ridden) by sprinkling of water, and he survives, the canon says that person cannot be accepted into the priesthood (canon 12 of NeoCeasaria 315 a.d.)

Following the canons and actually having them on display for the laity to see and read would clear up the confusion about what the Church believes considering heterodox baptism as well. Its actually quite simple but once again the ecumenists dont want it that way.
Actually the ecumenical councils call for the reception of Arians by chrismation only, and they obviously don't have the same apostolic understanding of the trinity.

There are many examples of saints who were received by chrismation only, even though they received the form of baptism in either Catholic or Protestant circles (note: I say the form).

Catholics were received by chrismation long before any so-called Western Captivity of the Russian Church.


That having been said, I'm in favor of receiving most people through baptism. As the vestiges of the faith get more and more distorted out there, I think it will become necessary soon to start receiving everyone by baptism.

Grace and peace,
John

[Kristos]

The sacraments have never been based on feelings, and to make them so is dangerous.

If a person submitted to his bishop and was received by chrismation, it doesn't matter what he feels. Submission and obedience are more important than his feelings.

Grace and peace,
John
I would have to agree with that.

Feelings are a terrible gauge of reality.

[jckstraw72]

I don't think it depends on your stance towards ecumenism. The Church has always received certain people outside of Her borders by chrismation, and that wasn't a sign of ecumenism. There are even canons in the ecumenical councils that detail when to do this.

oh no i didnt mean such practices were ecumenist -- i meant that those who most insist on rebaptism are prolly also those that are strongly (fanatially?) anti-ecumenism -- prolly like the schism groups -- at least thats what i would think, but dont know for sure.

but i have a question -- what reason is there to NOT rebaptize? i dont understand the purpose of this economia. and if we recognize the form of other's baptism, then why not the form of confirmation for Catholics and Anglicans, and so on. like why is it just baptism in other churhes that we accept?

[NyssaTheHobbit]

My priest has told me that he will receive me by Chrismation and not re-baptize me, because he recognises my Roman Catholic baptism. However, the Roman Catholic "priest" just poured water over my head. βαπτιζω means "I immerse". Pouring is not a baptism at all. I am currently making enquiries about finding a True Orthodox priest in Australia to catechize me and my girlfriend and finally baptize us.

I'd beware of that. From what I understand, the True Orthodox are not canonical, so this would probably not even be valid.

[rusmeister]

I second Pilgrim's motion - obedience is more important than your feelings or what seems like the Law to you. God knows your heart, and submitting to the authority of a canonical priest is the safest thing you can possibly do. There's too much that we don't know to make ourselves the authority. Christianity is not a religion of legalism in the long run; spirit of the law vs letter of the law. (The Devil is the lawyer trying to get us convicted, if you like.)

As CF said, watch out for trying to generate feelings about your experiences!!! "Uh-oh, here comes the Eucharist, I'm going to get a Blessed Experience; I'd better be feeling...." Don't be a 'Factory of Feelings'! Just do what you're told, regardless of how you feel about it. That IS obedience.

Do those ramblings make sense?

[buzuxi02]

Actually the ecumenical councils call for the reception of Arians by chrismation only, and they obviously don't have the same apostolic understanding of the trinity.

There are many examples of saints who were received by chrismation only, even though they received the form of baptism in either Catholic or Protestant circles (note: I say the form).

Catholics were received by chrismation long before any so-called Western Captivity of the Russian Church.


That having been said, I'm in favor of receiving most people through baptism. As the vestiges of the faith get more and more distorted out there, I think it will become necessary soon to start receiving everyone by baptism.

Grace and peace,
John
This is exactly what i mean. Arians were recieved by chrismation because they followed the same form, but had a heretical understanding of the Trinity. The Novationa and the quartodecimans were also recieved by chrismation. Nestorians and Monophysites on the other hand were accepted thru a confession of faith and denunciation of heresies only, (no chrismation) because they followed the same form and had the same understanding of the Trinity.
The form is both a Trinitarian formula and a triple immersion.
The Montanists had to be rebaptised because they baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Priscilla. In the case of the Montanists both their form and understanding were heretical.

Now these early canons only dealt with heretics that had at one time been part of the Church. A group outside the church, that never broke off from the Church had to be (re) baptised regardless of what form they used, The Church simply never recognized anything they did.

[MichaelArchangelos]

The form is both a Trinitarian formula and a triple immersion.

Well, the Roman Catholics use the Trinitarian formula, but they pour water over the head instead of immersion.

I wonder why my priest said that he will accept my Roman Catholic baptism whne the form is incorrect? It's not the first time he's said or done something against Orthodox tradition - hence the reason I'm looking for a True Orthodox priest.

[choirfiend]

WATER baptism is the accepted norm of form. Not, say, as in some churches, rose petals or anything like that. Immersion is the preference, but exceptions are given, as explained below.

The Orthodox texts say "living water" should be used, aka a running stream, river, or other body of clear, moving water. Then, if not running, at least cold (there point here was not to be using stagnant, soiled, green scummy pond water), which is the immersion baptism we mostly do today--very few places go baptize in a stream. If there wasn't enough water to immerse, then pouring was to be done. This was said because sometimes in the middle east, in a drought, you COULD NOT spare a bathtub amount of water to baptize in. If there was not even water for pouring/sprinkling (this being most typically an emergency situation) then one could even use sand (with the ancient view of elements here being that sand contained water).

I'm sure someone can find the above quoted text that I am paraphrasing and expanding upon, but it's referenced every year by my priest in explaining baptism to new converts.

Again--if you are new and find yourself making judgments and thinking that you know it all, watch out--chances are, you don't have a clue. And that's ok, and it's how things naturally are, and it's how one should begin in the faith, an infant who be instructed and formed by the Church--but you definitely should NEVER go looking for the "true" Orthodox.

[ThePilgrim]

Well, the Roman Catholics use the Trinitarian formula, but they pour water over the head instead of immersion.

I wonder why my priest said that he will accept my Roman Catholic baptism whne the form is incorrect? It's not the first time he's said or done something against Orthodox tradition - hence the reason I'm looking for a True Orthodox priest.
Orthodox tradition allows for pouring. It's not ideal and should not be done except in cases of necessity, but it's not ''invalid''.

[jckstraw72]

what reason is there to NOT rebaptise? i dont understand what it means when they say in certain situations we must use economia -- what is the reason to not rebaptise?

and why do recognize the form of other's baptisms, but not for the other sacraments?

[kamikat]

Well, the Roman Catholics use the Trinitarian formula, but they pour water over the head instead of immersion.

I wonder why my priest said that he will accept my Roman Catholic baptism whne the form is incorrect? It's not the first time he's said or done something against Orthodox tradition - hence the reason I'm looking for a True Orthodox priest.


As has been said before, pouring is an acceptable method by canon law. Most Orthodox jurisdictions accept Roman Catholic baptism. There is also a shortened chrismation service for those who have gone through Roman Catholic confirmation. Again, this is normal Orthodox procedures. This is what your priest and his bishop are following. Just because you don't feel it's "Orthodox enough" doesn't mean you need to run off to find the nearest "True Orthodox" schismatic group, that is non-canonical and considered by the rest of World Orthodoxy to be not of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If you truly feel you need to go to a non-canonical group, you will be cutting yourself off the Our Lord's Church. Do you not see this? You are endangering your soul by thinking you need a "more Orthodox" group. Orthodoxy is about obedience to His Church. Are you willing to submit to what your priest and his bishop have decided?