Roman Catholic Baptism valid if...

[roman0catholic]

I was Baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the water was poured over my head one time for each Person of the Holy Trinity (even though I wasn't submerged?)...just curious.:thumbsup:

[davidlazarus]

Blessings "roman0catholic",

I believe not, if we compare this to all cases in scripture, we always read of submersion, not a sprinkling of water.

Also, if we consider the case of Simon the sorceror and the Samaritans in the book of Acts, they had faith and were baptised, yet they did not receive the Holy Spirit until the laying on of hands from the apostles.

Today this is done through the anointing of the Holy Myron, but it must be done by the consecrated Priesthood of the apostolic Church.

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church can no longer be considered so, and as such their clergy hold no such authority in Christ.

Peace to you

David Lazarus

[palestinianboy]

The "Christian" baptism is valid if the formula based on in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. ( Matthew 28:19) and baptized by water and the Holy Spirit regardless the ages ( for some Christian denominations doesnt confess the infant baptism )

If we look up to all cases in scripture, we always read of submersion, not a sprinkling of water , nor infant baptism. However, first we have to understand why should we be baptized that we shall consider the "original sin" that everybody is born in sin. Baptism in the name of Father, Son and The Holy Spirit is the only one valid baptism for remission of sins. that is the point.

Even though I had submersion baptism ( I'm from orthodox church ), I don't think I will say sprinkling baptism is not valid. Because as I believe that Christian baptism is valid IF baptized in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ( Not in the name of Jesus Christ, or in the name of Holy Spirit... or the most false formula : in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit who is Jesus Christ )

Peace to you

Baptist means be sinked from Greek ( baptizo )

[zhilan]

Hey I have a question.

So, I was baptized as a Catholic, not submerged. When I was brought into the Orthodox Church, I was Chrismated, but not re-baptized.

Let's say I were going to marry a Coptic Orthodox (I don't think I will since I'm already nearly engaged to an EO, but just for curiosities sake, let's say I was going to marry a Copt). According to agreements between our Churches we can marry and neither has to be brought into the other, but the spouses church will recognize the marriage (assuming approval has been given from the Bishops of both Churches). So in my hypothetical marriage, we decide to be married in the Coptic Church. As an EO, I would not need to be re-baptized, but how would my situation be treated since I was Chrismated EO, but actually baptized Catholic?

[davidlazarus]

Blessings Zhilan, although I am far from an expert I am surprised that any Orthodox Church, be it Eastern or Oriental accepted a Roman Catholic baptism, but if the Eastern's did, then I have learnt something.

In relation to your question, I imagine you would be baptised and possibly Chrismated again, as your baptism being Roman certainly cannot be recognised.

As for you being Chrismated again, under your circumstances I am honestly not sure as I have never heard of this situation, but I think it would be done again, but please know on this I could be wrong.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge than I will answer this for you.

Peace and Love to you

David Lazarus

[Anglian]

Dear Zhilan,

In Alexandria there is an agreement between the Greek and Coptic Patriarchs which allows intermarriage and which recognises the validity of both baptisms; this is a local agreement, but there is no reason it cannot be extended at the discretion of the bishops concerned.

I don't know how the Church would regard a Catholic baptism, but suspect that most bishops would take the view that baptism and chrismation would be necessary. I will check with my bishop and get back.

In peace,

Anglian

p.s. congratulations on your nearly engagement.

A.:wave:

[zhilan]

Yeah it's an interesting question. Because if I were a cradle EO and wanted to join the coptic church i woudln't have to be re-baptized, only I think chrismated, and if I were a cradle EO and going to marry a Copt I wouldn't have to do anything.

I guess things are just complicated because as a convert to EO, I am sort of a mixed bag if you will. ;D

[buzuxi02]

Yeah it's an interesting question. Because if I were a cradle EO and wanted to join the coptic church i woudln't have to be re-baptized, only I think chrismated, and if I were a cradle EO and going to marry a Copt I wouldn't have to do anything.

I guess things are just complicated because as a convert to EO, I am sort of a mixed bag if you will. ;D
The EO accepts the form of heterodox baptism done in the name of the Trinity (but not with triple immersion), on the basis of eikonomia. Personally i believe this is a bad idea. Last i checked the JP in america still baptise those outside the church with the Orthodox baptism. The ROCOR may use eikonomia on roman catholics only, but im almost positive all protestants are baptised. There has also been many reports of monks on Mt Athos who occasionally ask an Orthodox convert to be baptized by them with triple immersion even if they were already recieved into the Church thru chrismation only.

The proper Orthodox form for baptism of course is triple immersion and in the name of the persons of the Trinity. And i criticise heirarchs who try to tell us (in the name of ecumenism) that only baptism in the name of the persons of the Trinity is the proper form.

Orthodox canons established at the 6th ecumenical council, allow the OO and the nestorians who follow this same identical form of triple immersion and in the name of the Trinity,(and since they accept and understand the creed the same way) into the EO church thru a confession of faith and denunciation of any unorthodox teaching, and are directly given communion without the need for chrismation.