www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Converts From Eastern Catholicism

What are you basing these conclusions on? Is it more than the opinion of one man? (ie. your spiritual father)

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear Daniel,
You are of course entitled to your opinions - as we all are. But unless those opinions are based upon something more than sheer emotionalism, the opinionated need not expect others to respect their opinions. As even the Old Ritualists will tell you, under certain conditions Orthodoxy recognizes Baptism administered by heretics. Incognitus

My Opinions are based on the Orthodox Canons that were shown to my by some one. (i.e. Spiritual Father)
Thats the opinion of most Traditionalist Orthodox Jurisdictions. i.e. Jerusalem Patriarchate, Serbian Church, ect... basically any Church thats in Communion with ROCOR. Thats what I base my opinion on.

In Christ
Daniel

Daniel,

Your opinions reflect what is called the "Greek" position and which were put forth by St Nicodemus the Hagiorite; but the Russian practice of receiving Catholics by confession is a more ancient practice than rebaptising all non-Orthodox. I am not saying that one method is more valid than the other but the JP, Serbs, and ROCOR do NOT baptise all converts.

Your Antiochian priest simply can't baptise you and is being disobedient;

and at any rate even the Greeks would allow you to be chrismated since your Byzantine Catholic baptism was done with the right form (not by sprinkling).

anastasios

Daniel,

You leave out an important link in the chain of logic that forms the basis for your opinion. You accept what was shown to you by some one, notwithstanding the fact that there is a divergence of opinions on these matters, not just within Apostolic Christianity, but within Orthodoxy itself.

So, to move back a link in the chain, what is the basis for your choosing to accept the opinions of this some one, and thus, to reject the opinions of others?

Why do I not choose the Opinion on the other side of the argument? Because all I do is look to the current day Roman Catholic Church.

All "Traditional Orthodox" are doing is trying to prevent the same sad and misfortunate thing
that has happend in Roman Catholicism from it happining in Orthodoxy. And thanks to Modernist and Ecumenist they are distroying the Orthodox Church with such ecumenical acts and mordernizations.

Thats why I choose the "Traditional" Orthodox opinions over the Church ruining Modernization and Ecumenistic opinions.

Another Reasons besides reading the Orthodox Canons is look at all the "Traditionalist" Orthodox Jurisidcions today, ROCOR, JP, SP, are all Traditionalist churches and have never changed as the other jursidcitions have and if they never have changed thats how things were from the start, so why would I want to join a church of accept there views that have moderated them from the Orginal?

In Christ
Daniel

I am going to be baptized in the Antiochian Church because I do not have a baptismal certificate and if you dont have one they baptize you.

If the Antiochians would not baptize me then I would not join that particular jurisdiction, I would wait till I am near a JP, SERB or ROCOR parish to be recieved into Orthodoxy if that were the case. Thats just how strongly I feel about that.

Also the JP monastery here in CA said on there webs site mentioned some thing about baptizing all Heterodox. I found that intresting

In Christ
Daniel

Daniel,

1) You don't have a baptismal certificate but you as I recall were recently baptised Byzantine Catholic, hence you are an adult witness to your own baptism! This is a clear playing around the rules!

2) What do you mean when you say ecumenism? Please consider your views within the context of this article on ecumenism [incommunion.org]

3) My friend just joined the JP from the Byzantine Cahtolics and was received by chrismation.

anastasios

Daniel,

The first reason you give is ill-conceived. Technically, you fall into the fallacy of drawing the line. I ask about A and you discuss why you do not do B. But B and A do not span all possibilities; not B isn't A. So this is not a logically meaningful response.

Neither is the second. Really it's just a shuffle of the question. Most groups make this claim at some level. Orthoman of the OCA makes the claim, but ROCOR might dispute this particular claim for the OCA; ROCOR makes the claiml, but the Old Beleivers would dispute their claim. The Oriental Orthodox, argued at Chalcedon that the Orthodox Catholics were adding new dogma not in the articulation of faith of Nicea-Constantinople. The neo-gnostics argue that everything was changed at Nicea. The Mormons argue that the great apostasy occurred even before that.

Each group argues that they have kept to the fundamentals, and that any changes that thay may have allowed over time are incidental, or providential.

So we come back to square one. You have made a decision to accept the claims of "some one", and thus to reject the claims of others. I still ask you, what was the basis for your decision?

Anointing or Chrismation?

I would have to look at the Euchologion that was used. If it was according to the akoloutheia of 1484 then it was an "anointing".

The Greeks tend to chrismate without distinction of Catholic or Protestant though.

anastasios

Dear Daniel - did you receive the correct FORM of baptism? Whether it was grace-filled from your perspective is totally irrelevant. Even from an ultra-traditionalist Orthodox perspective, to repeat a correct outward form would be wrong.

Even the priestly Old Believer Tradition has not done this in the past, though xenophobia has lead to some malpractice recently.

To be received into Holy Orthodoxy through chrismation would fill any graceless but externally correct baptism with the Grace of God.

Also, I find traditionalist talk and then entering into Antiochian Orthodoxy to be ill at odds with oneanother. If you want ecclesiastical rigorism and strictness, why the earth are you entering the Antiochian Patriarchate? Perhaps their wishy-washyness is only a British thing, but from this side of the Atlantic, Antioch and conservative Orthodox polemics DO NOT go hand in hand.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

ByzantineAscetic

Did you know that in some parts of Macedonia and Serbia priests used (or use) to baptize in the "French" way as some Russian writers said?

Would you find these Baptisms invalid or graceless just because they were performed in the Latin form?

As for the Serbian Patriarchy, I would not call it a "traditionalist" jurisdiction according to your view of traditionalism. Patriarch Pavle and his Church are in favor to dialogue and ecumenical approaches with the Roman Catholic Church. Patriarch Paul himself said that John Paul II would be regarded as the first among equals by his own Church and waited for the reunion to come one day!

They do not receive all converts by Baptism either, in fact Serbs have received Catholics by simple profession of faith or simply by marrying a Serbian Orthodox which is still common in the Balkans.

Daniel,

You stated that you are being re-baptized because you did not have documentation of your original baptism (please correct me if I am remembering incorrectly). If indeed you were baptized into the Byzantine Catholic Church, you should have been provided with a baptismal certificate. If you do not have one for some reason then you can easily request one. You need to tell your Antiochian Orthodox pastor about your Byzantine Catholic baptism and provide documentation of it.

Admin

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Daniel,
I know a ROCOR archamandrite who refuses to receive any Catholic into his church UNLESS HE HAS LOST ALL FAITH IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. This from a monk who had been on Mount Athos and is highly respected in the ROCOR. He told me, "I do not want to make the schism worse than it already is," and has TURNED CATHOLICS AWAY when they have asked to become Orthodox (perhaps seeing a disgruntled motive in their intentions).

What this has demonstrated to me is that one cannot be a one-man synod. One can take the Canons and read them in only in the light that fits one's own agenda. Orthodoxy cannot proceed on the jurisdictional agendas of the few; the ambiguity in Orthodox praxis has to be acknowledged by all sides and not swept under the table.

If you cannot be completely sure that the "heterodox" churches are truly graceless and that your baptism is completely invalid, you cannot proceed with re-baptism, lest you have to respond before the fearsome judgement seat of Christ for such an action. The Catholic Church is also the Church of Christ, this even the most rabid "traditionalist" Orthodox acknowledges in the depths of his ecclesial consciousness.

If you really want to insist on the "graceless heretics" position, I can only direct you to the hieromonk mentioned above for guidance. He will be happy to show you his icon of St. Therese of the Child Jesus.

Sincerely,
Arturo