Baptisms

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

On the "Needing a Little Assistance" thread, the subject of protestant baptisms came up. I'm wondering if the Orthodox Church has a specific policy/doctrine about which baptisms are acceptable. If so, is it the same standard in each diocese?

It was my understanding, based on what an OCA priest told me, that there are very few protestant baptisms that are considered "acceptable" to the Orthodox Church. I *think* the requirement is that if you've had a protestant baptism, it has to have been sacramental. I think the Lutheran church considers baptism a sacrament, and maybe Methodist & Presbyterian but I'm not sure. People with baptisms as Roman Catholics are always accepted with just Chrismation. I'm pretty sure this is what I was told, but I could always be wrong, or maybe I've misunderstood.

I'm really surprised that a Baptist baptism was acceptable, but then I don't know much about their doctrine. I was baptised as a teenager but I just assumed I will probably have to be baptised again.

Thanks!:)

[countrymousenc]

According to what I've been told in catechumen class, in the OCA (at least in this archdiocese), a Protestant who was baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not rebaptized. This is a matter of policy, and a priest who rebaptizes such a person could be defrocked for it.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Hmmm, I think I was baptised with the invocation if the Trinity. I was baptised in the Church of God (Anderson). Is anyone familiar with that denomination? If so, do you know if they say the Trinity at baptisms? I suppose I could call a local pastor and ask.

[Nickolai]

All who have been baptized incompletely (meaning not an Orthodox Baptism, dogmaticaly you don't recieve sacramental grace in a heterodox baptism. The grace is given when you are chrismated, and your baptism then becomes complete.) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are acceptable for completion.

This is suposed to apply in all jurisdictions. And technically it does. There are a few Churches (Mostly Synodal) that do rebaptism. But ROCOR as a whole is supposed to follow the same guidelines as the OCA, Greeks, Antiochian and the like.

[Iacobus]

On the "Needing a Little Assistance" thread, the subject of protestant baptisms came up. I'm wondering if the Orthodox Church has a specific policy/doctrine about which baptisms are acceptable. If so, is it the same standard in each diocese?

It was my understanding, based on what an OCA priest told me, that there are very few protestant baptisms that are considered "acceptable" to the Orthodox Church. I *think* the requirement is that if you've had a protestant baptism, it has to have been sacramental. I think the Lutheran church considers baptism a sacrament, and maybe Methodist & Presbyterian but I'm not sure. People with baptisms as Roman Catholics are always accepted with just Chrismation. I'm pretty sure this is what I was told, but I could always be wrong, or maybe I've misunderstood.

I'm really surprised that a Baptist baptism was acceptable, but then I don't know much about their doctrine. I was baptised as a teenager but I just assumed I will probably have to be baptised again.

Thanks!:)

Hi Elizabeth

There are all sorts of guidelines out there, but in the end, its up to your Bishop. And believe me, your Bishop will make the final decision in your case. They take that very seriously, and the decision in each case is highly individualized, based on a lot of factors. So really all you need to do is give your priest the facts, and he will take it to the Bishop. Whatever he says is what you need to do.

James

[The Prokeimenon!]

in the end, its up to your Bishop

That's correct. In my case, I was Baptised as a Baptist when I was 8 (or possibly 9, whatever the "age of accountability" was in those days ;)). Almost all Baptists Baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. But since I had always attended Independent Baptist Churches, the practice was up to the Pastor. There's no "accross-the-board" rule because there's no association with other Churches, except maybe a friendly relationship.

When I was a Catechumen, our Priest asked for our Baptismal certificates if we had one, or a verification that our Baptism was Trinitatian. I could provide neither, *but*, I had been reBaptised at age 23, and I remember it quite clearly as being Trinitarian (though still no certificate was issued). My Priest said that The Orthodox Church would recognize my first Baptism, but if it was not Trinitarian, the second Baptism was the one which would be completed at Chrismation.

It's up to the Bishop. If you have a certificate of a Trinitarian Baptism, or can recall or verify that your Baptism was Trinitarian, you should be recieved through Chrismation. If you don't know, the Bishop will decide how to proceed.

In the end, of the five people that entered The Church that day, only one was Baptised- a former Mormon.

Moses

[pax]

Sorry to "hijack" the thread, but do the Orthodox do conditional Baptisms? I know in Catholicism if the priest can't be sure if the person was baptised properly he can do a conditional Baptism saying something like "If you have not been baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

[Cradle]

Church precision suggests that we do not accept any other baptism other than the Orthodox one as a complete and valid sacrament, very much like we don't let people receive communion in a non-Orthodox church. The precision therefore is that the heterodox should be received into the Church through baptism.

Church economy suggests that individual circumstances and considerations, local practices and traditions, and even historical background apply when receiving someone. In this context, heterodox can be (and often are) received perfectly well through Chrismation alone, provided that they have had some form of previous baptism. Orthodox Chrismation in these circumstances completes and validates the heterodox baptism.

Precision and Economy are both blessed practices in the Church and they have both created saints. In one matter or the other, we are all under some form of economy. Therefore, don't take me wrong : I don't mean to say those who are received by baptism are "class A" Orthodox and the others are "only class B". I'm only giving the facts as I've known them. And of course the fact of the matter is that both receiving by baptism and receiving by plain chrismation (if a previous heterodox baptism has been applied) have a long history in the Church and they both have created saints. Personally, I think it is important that we keep doing both as applicable per situation, very much like it is important we keep exercising Precision and Economy in all matters as applicable per situation.

My bottom line is I agree with the others : give the facts (and maybe your thoughts on the issue, if any) to whoever priest overlooks your catechism and do as he says.

I have to say I quite plainly disagree with the OCA if they really do the following
a priest who rebaptizes such a person could be defrocked for it

Father Placide Deseille, the "Kallistos Ware of the francophone world" was a well-standing Catholic priest in France. Yet, when he decided to embrace Orthodoxy he received all sacraments from the beginning, in Simonos Petra monastery on the Holy Mountain, beginning with Orthodox baptism. Thus, obviously with the proper spiritual guidance, deciding to apply Precision to himself. I think that under his influence receiving Catholics through Orthodox baptism is usual in France nowadays. Economy is Holy and Blessed, but defrocking people for applying Precision is just wrong. My unworthy opinion anyway.

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, Cradle.

I have to say I quite plainly disagree with the OCA if they really do the following

a priest who rebaptizes such a person could be defrocked for it ... Economy is Holy and Blessed, but defrocking people for applying Precision is just wrong. My unworthy opinion anyway.

Perhaps Countrymousenc meant to say that priests who "rebaptized" converts without consulting their Bishops have been defrocked, since only a bishop has the authority to decide if a convert will be received by Baptism or by Chrismation.

By the way, the Orthodox Research Institute has a very good article about Baptism and Sacramental Economy (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/baptism_sacramental_economy.htm).

In XC,
Rick

[Nickolai]

Well apparently the rudder does say that a priest should be defrocked if a person is rebaptised. In this case if they already had a trinitarian baptism. Our creed states "One baptism for the remission of sins". I can't verify this since I have no desire to read the rudder unless I become a member of the clergy.

[Polycarp1]

This is not an answer to the question posed, which needs of course to be based in Orthodox praxis, but background information regarding Protestantism.

A large number of Protestant churches consider Baptism to be an "ordinance" not conveying grace but done in response to Christ's call and command. The Baptists are the most obvious examples, but there are a lot of others; without certitude on individual church doctrines, I prefer not to specify others by name.

However, the more liturgical Protestants and a few others adhere to Baptism as a Sacrament conveying grace and for the remission of sins and incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ. All the Anglican and Episcopal churches, all the Lutheran churches, and virtually all the Wesleyan churches, including specifically Methodism and the Church of the Nazarene to my certain knowledge, practice sacramental baptism, following the baptismal formula laid down by Christ in the Great Commission and carried out faithfully by the church ever since.

So to the extent that the intent of sacramental baptism and proper form influence Orthodox teaching on the validity of baptisms by Reformation and later churches, there you have the two groups.

[Polycarp1]

Church economy suggests that individual circumstances and considerations, local practices and traditions, and even historical background apply when receiving someone. In this context, heterodox can be (and often are) received perfectly well through Chrismation alone, provided that they have had some form of previous baptism. Orthodox Chrismation in these circumstances completes and validates the heterodox baptism.
I found the discussion regarding Precision and Economy to be very enlightening, and appreciate it immensely. As a very side note on my own, non-Orthodox experience that relates to the above, my wife and I were born into Methodist families, and converted to Anglicanism. As you may be aware, while Anglican bishops lay on hands in confirmation for confirmands at age 12 or above in accordance with the Western tradition, we also chrismate infants (and others) with the traditional formula as a part of the Baptismal ritual. Methodists, of course, do not chrismate at Baptism. So when we stood as godparents to a friend we'd led to Christ and to Episcopalianism at his baptism, the year after our conversion, we took the opportunity to request Chrismation for ourselves as well.