www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News ANABAPTISM OF A FORMER GREEK CATHOLIC FAITHFUL IN GREECE II

You think they have reason to make it up?

Will this be the standard for all articles now? We will demand photos, addresses to write to parties involved for confirmation? Everything else will be "heresay"?

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/10564

I am sorry, but equal time is some equal time. There is much discussion here about the situation of minority Orthodox in some Catholic countries like Poland. See the above and - fair is fair - if it means anything at all (and I am not sure it means all that much theologically) the treatment of Catholics as a minority in Greece has not been spectacular. Forcing Catholic conscripts to swear in to the Army on a Koran, and keeping religion notations as part of state IDs, hassles faced in building and remodeling Catholic churches, schools, monasteries...

It is really that difficult to believe that there are priests who could have fallen under the sway of anti-Catholic sentiment or personally follow the writings of someone like the late Father John Romanides who had little good to say of "the west" and warned of how corrupted and deficient we were?

I don't speak French - only ran it through a translator. I don't see how the claim is farfetched or any decent incentive for a minority communion in Greece to have to make something like that up. Why would they?

Inaccurate information only succeeds in getting people to ignore accurate information. Catholics in Greece are in hard place. But should this accusation (in the original article) prove to be false it will only hurt the cause. The original article was in French, and we immediately had issues with translations (i.e., was it speaking of Anabaptists or Re-Baptism?) So asking for a link and proper reference to the original article is legitimate. It does not mean that the issue is hearsay. It means that we want better sourcing. Even with just a URL most could tell the difference between a website that is more like the �National Enquirer� (i.e., Hillary has 12 heads and tail) and The Wall Street Journal.

My personal guess is that the story is probably accurate but leaves out more then it includes. Getting more accurate information could allow some who read this Forum to write a letter which might make a difference.

A good article and one worthy of discussion, but best handled in a separate thread. It would be good if such a thread examined the issues without undo emotion and sought to work towards real solutions. In Greece Orthodoxy is seen as vital to Greek ethnicity and nationality and it is almost impossible for those from different faith groups to be considered Greek (because Greek = Orthodox = Greek). This is not unlike Japan, where foreigners can never assimilate and become Japanese. Understanding this and accounting for it (rather then just blaming Orthodoxy) makes all the difference in finding solutions.

From the official website of the Apostolic Exarchy in Greece (of the Byzantine rite faithful), written by the parish priest of St. Peter and Paul Grek Catholic Church in Giannitsa (Northern Greece), fr. Michel Prindezis. The Text in French: http://www.elcathex.com/eke/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1040&Itemid=
The text in Greek: http://www.elcathex.com/eke/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1036&Itemid=
I use the words "anabaptism" and "anabaptize" in its Greek original meaning "re-baptism" or "baptize again".

I read French and having read the article, I still say it is "hearsay".
The name of the person supposedly "rebaptised" is not given or the name of the Greek Orthodox priest, the name of the Greek Orthodox Church or the date of the baptism. Nor is the there any collaboration or statement providing the official Greek Orthodox policy on this issue.

Fine with me.

Actually, I am rather pleased.

If this is now the standard by which things are credible or not, I can almost be hopeful that some of the "hearsay" that gains such currency on articles dealing with the Catholic Church around these here parts at times... Well, maybe under this standard we can see less of that.

Here's hoping!

While some people in this forum ask for probes that unfortunately I can not provide you with (actually I am not in Greece, and obvioully I was not present at the baptism, the word of my former parish priest, wha had the baptism certificate in his hands, being enought for me) and as you can imagine I would never publish the name of the convert to the Orthodox Church, everybody in the Orthodox Church seems to be awere of this common practise of the Orthodox Church in Greece and its theological justification.

From: http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html

The Orthodox Church in America
The Bishop of San Francisco and the West
650 Micheltorena Street, Los Angeles, CA 90026-3629
Telephone: (213) 913-3615; Facsimile (213) 913-0316


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, March 13, 1997
Clean Thursday


Letter of Instructions #10:
THE RECEPTION OF HERETIC LAITY AND CLERGY INTO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

[by Bishop Tikhon]
Very Reverend and Reverend
Archimandrites, Hegumens, Hieromonks,
Archpriests and Priests
Diocese of the West

Dear and most esteemed Very Reverend and Reverend Fathers:

The Lord's blessing be upon you!

Recently, I've become aware of a lot of discussion and controversy in Orthodox circles here in America on the topic of the proper way to receive, for example, Roman Catholics and Lutherans, into the Orthodox Church, and how Roman Catholic and Lutheran clergy become Orthodox clergy. While it is on the one hand inspiring to observe our clergy and people engaged in thought, discussion, even debate on holy topics, it is also disturbing to me when some of those engaged in these discussions and debates seem to minimize or give only a passing, slight nod in the direction of the practices that have been passed on to us, and seem to feel that any theological conclusions they may reach on these topics must be reflected in practice. It is most perplexing, too, that the labels of conservative and liberal, so inappropriate to Christian, as opposed to political, thought, are applied to one or other position on the topic, frequently in a way completely contradictory to the meaning of those political labels.

The practice of our Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and that of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America ("The Metropolia"), as likewise that of the Russian Mission and Missionary Diocese and Archdiocese that preceded them, in the matter of the reception of heretics is very clear: it is the practice that obtains and has obtained in the Russian Church for centuries, at least since the time of Peter the Great. It may be found and studied in the Service Books of the Church of Russia [in both its "native" conformation (The Church of Russia) and "foreign" (Abroad) conformation]. According, for example, to the Book of Needs published at Vladimirova between the wars by the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia, that differs in no respects from previous and subsequent Books of Needs published by The Church of Russia, Roman Catholics are received, after undergoing the Office for the Reception Converts printed in the same book, immediately into Communion and are imparted the Holy Mysteries at the ensuing Liturgy without further ado, unless they have not been Chrismated (i.e., are coming from the Latin Rite of the Roman communion and not from the Uniates), in which case they would be chrismated. No provision at all is provided in the Service Books to receive Roman Catholics in the manner of receiving Jews and Mohammedans, i.e., to baptize them.

The prescribed practice printed in our Service Books has been in force and active use for centuries, and it cannot be considered only a temporary episode of Economy in the life of the Church. When candidates for the LayingonofHands to the honorable Priesthood promise to observe the liturgical order of the Church, they are promising (failing a contrary directive from their Bishop) to follow the prescribed rites printed in the Service Books. And the overturning of the prescribed practice without a preceding directive from a Synod or council would be an example of innovation. Oddly enough, some that would advocate this consider themselves to be "conservative."

My own predecessors in the see of San Francisco followed these Service Books. They are the Service Books of the Church of Saint Innocent and of Saint Tikhon. They are the Service Books of the Church of such luminaries as the evermemorable Metropolitans Antony (Khrapovitsky) and Anastassy (Gribanovski). I know of no oral or written guidance given by any of the foregoing luminaries altering the received practice in this matter.

Saint Elisabeth (Elizaveta Fyodorovna), recently added to the calendar of Saints of the Russian Church, was received into the Orthodox Church (as was likewise her sister, the sainted Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna) from the state German Lutheran Church where she had been baptized as a child, through the Rite of the Reception of Heretics with ensuing Chrismation--without a new Baptism.

Recently a book touching heavily on the topic of the baptism of converts by a Professor of the state Church of Greece, Professor Metallinos, has enjoyed a wide readership in American Orthodox circles. Whatever may be one's opinions and convictions vis-�-vis the conclusions of Professor Metallinos on the question, one must realize that these conclusions have significance only insofar as they might appear inter alia on the agenda of a Synod of Bishops or a Church Council that would decide to reexamine the received practice of our Church. One need not read Professor Metallinos's book to find support for the peculiar position of the Greek Church(es) on the topic: in fact, one would expect to find the practices of the state Church of Greece being welldefended by all Her Faithful children. I have appended, as "Attachment One" to this letter, an excerpt from the collection of the Canons of the Orthodox Church with commentaries by a noted, authoritative canonist outside the boundaries of the state Church of Greece, Bishop Nikodim of the Serbian Church. This is an authoritative statement on what is, in fact, our received practice by a Hierarch at least as widely respected on the topic of Church canons as Professor Metallinos. I don't present this attachment as justification or defense for a practice that I uphold because I believe it to be my duty as a Bishop. I'm presenting it in the interests of clarity, and I want to add to the ongoing discussion and debate a document that should assure everyone that any Priest or Bishop of the Orthodox Church in America that receives Roman Catholic heretics by Chrismation or Lutheran or Anglican heretics by Chrismation is not some kind of "looseshotgun Liberal" motivated by ecumenism or the heretical "branch theory" of ecclesiology, but is someone that is following a practice totally obedient to the received practice of our Church.

I also feel it incumbent on me to comment on the reception of Roman Catholic clergy and their becoming Orthodox clergy. I've attached my own translation of the prescribed "Office of Receiving a Priest of the Roman Church into Communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church", that is the venerable and centuries old practice of the Church of Russia, of the Russian Mission and Missionary Diocese in America and its successors, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America ("The Metropolia") and the Orthodox Church in America.

As I commented on the reception of two sainted German princesses into the Orthodox Church when discussing the reception of Laity, I would like to point to the reception of St. Alexis Toth (Tovt) of Minneapolis and WilkesBarre. St. Alexis was received according to the rite outlined in the attached document, i.e., by Confession of Faith, Penance, and vesting in the Altar after the Cherubicon. How could it be otherwise? Can one imagine Bishop Vladimir or Bishop Nicholas, the two Russian hierarchs of the day, contravening the established practice of the Russian Church and insisting the St. Alexis be ordained according to the formula for ordaining Laity? (And I may remark that St. Alexis came to the Russian Orthodox bishop in San Francisco in the first place because a Roman Catholic hierarch did not recognize his Priesthood! One may only imagine how history might now differ if the Russian Orthodox Bishop in San Francisco had also refused to recognize his Priesthood and that of many subsequent Clergy of the Church!)

Recently a Hierarch of our Orthodox Church In America received a Priest from the Roman church exactly as our Tradition requires, yet this action was, scandalously, publicly decried by a few clergy and laity of the Orthodox Church in America, and at least one temporarily lost soul went so far as to adopt the custom of the heretical Amish and shunned the Priest that had been received into the community of Orthodox clergy in the prescribed fashion! Dearly beloved and esteemed brother Priests and Shepherds! Let's always be governed in our conduct by the Tradition of our Church and not by the temporary passions of the day that may splash like waves of the sea of life against the hull of the holy Ship of our salvation, Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let's preserve what has been handed on to us! Neither I nor His Beatitude, nor any of the Hierarchs of the Orthodox Church in America are reckless opponents of Church Order or Discipline. We do not "take our cues" from anything but what we have received. The Orthodox practice of receiving Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans as described by the Serbian Bishop Nikodim and the Orthodox reception of Roman Catholic priests as outlined in Nikol'sky are not any sort of indications that our Hierarchy is hostage to ecumenism, branch theory, relativism, positivism, scholasticism, liberalism, indifferentism or any other "ism" conflicting in any way with the Holy Tradition, but a sign of their obedience.

During the time when Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas and the South was serving the Church as Bishop of Berkeley, a letter was sent out to all the parishes in the then Diocese of San Francisco that directed that "across the board" Roman Catholics as well as Anglicans and Lutheran and Calvinists previously baptized with water and in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, would be received by Chrismation. That policy remains in effect.

At our next meeting of the venerable clergy, I want the manner that we receive converts to be on the agenda. Right now, the practice may vary too widely from parish to parish to characterize it. Further, some questions I have been given lead me to believe that there is some confusion on what our practice is and should be. Therefore, in the interim, I ask all the Rectors to receive heretics according to the format in the Service Book translated by Hapgood. That means a life's confession, a definite, specific and public and renunciation of specific wrong teachings formerly held, Absolution according to the formula printed in that Office, and ensuing Chrismation of the Convert on all the places prescribed and then Communion of the Holy Mysteries.

Assuring you of my constancy in prayer and sending a blessing,

With love in Christ,

[signed]

+TIKHON

DISTRIBUTION: His Beatitude and Members of the Holy Synod

Encls.

1. Excerpt from Bp. Nikodim's "Pravila."

2. Excerpt from Nikol'sky's "Ustav."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EXCERPT FROM (IN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE)
RULES (Canons) OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH with Explanations.
Nikodim, Bishop of Dalmatia and Istria.
Volume I.
Translated from the Serbian.
Saint Petersburg. The Saint Petersburg Theological Academy.
1911

Page 282-3

[Webmaster's Note: Quotations from the Russian, included by His Grace for clarity, have been transliterated for online distribution by the editor.]

(Preceding the following is a discussion of the differences of opinion of East and West)

Therefore, being governed, on the question of Baptism done by a nonOrthodox community (obschestvo), by the general injunctions (predpisaniyami) of the councils and Fathers, one may thus delineate the principle of the Orthodox Church: Baptism as something instituted by Jesus Christ may be accomplished only in His Church and consequently only in the Church may it be correct and salvific; however, if other Christian communities located outside the Orthodox Church hold the conscious intention of bringing the newlybaptized into Christ's Church, i.e., have the intention to communicate to him Divine Grace through Baptism in order that he would become through the power of the Holy Spirit a true member of the Body of Christ and a reborn child of God, then this Baptism also may be considered effective insofar as it is done on the foundation of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for where such a Baptism is given and received, there it must operate with Grace (deistvovat� blagodatno) and Christ's support cannot fail to be there. Every community that perverts the teaching about God and does not recognize the Trinity of holy Persons in the Godhead cannot perform a correct baptism, and a baptism done in it is not Baptism because such a community lies outside Christianity. By virtue of this, the Orthodox Church recognizes as effective and saving the Baptism of every Christian community located outside Her boundaries, whether it be heretical or schismatic, truly (istinno) done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Bishop Nikodim adds a footnote: "According to the practice of the Greek Church, Roman Catholics converting to the Orthodox Church must be baptized again. We are not in a position to express our judgment relative to this practice, since we don't know how it is that the Greek Church applies the first rule of Saint Basil to Roman Catholics. We will only remark that this is exclusively the practice (isklyuchitel'no praktika) of the Greek Church and also that both in Russia and Serbia Roman Catholics are received into the Church without a new Baptism...�



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From
AN AID
TO THE STUDY OF

THE TYPIKON OF SERVICES
Of the Orthodox Church
By Konstantin Nikol'sky
Archpriest of the Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos on Sennaya
Sixth Edition
Saint Petersburg. 1900
pp. 685-686

THE OFFICE OF RECEIVING A PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CHURCH INTO COMMUNION WITH THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH [1]
Such cases of uniting to the Orthodox Church are done according to the general office as outlined here.

The sponsor that is customary in this is chosen from among the Clergy.

There is no female sponsor.

Recognition of the person thus conjoined in the office of Priest requires a decision of the Holy Synod.

Before his admittance to service as a Priest, his conscience must be examined before a spiritual father, as in the case of one preparing for Ordination.

If examination reveals there is no canonical impediment for a blessing to serve, then, when the Hierarch arrives at the Church to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, the candidate comes with the rest of the clergy dressed according to the custom of Orthodox clergy and receives with them the Hierarch's blessing, after which he goes to the Diaconicon and stays there, not vested, until the Cherubicon.

After the Cherubicon and the placing of the holy gifts on the Holy Table, he is led by Subdeacons, but not through the Holy Doors, rather within the Altar to the Holy Throne (Altar Table) and to the Hierarch, and he reverences him in the manner of one being brought to Ordination. And the Priestly vestments are brought and put on the one being received into the community of the Priesthood. The Hierarch blesses each piece of the vestments, and the one being vested kisses the Hierarch's hand. And the Deacon says the verses for Priestly vestments, not as exclamations, but so that the one being vested can hear him. After this the one received into the community of the Priesthood receives the kiss of peace from the Hierarch and the rest, in the manner of one just ordained, and he stands with the rest of the Priests and takes part in the Liturgy and in the Communion of the Holy Mysteries. And from thence he has the same power to liturgize as an Orthodox Priest. [2] (Collection of the Opinions and Judgments of Metropolitan Philaret, volume V, pp. 952953.)

--------------------------------------------
1 This office was formulated by Metropolitan Philaret because of the case of the reputed incorrect bringing into Orthodox Communion of the Abbot Maundreli. See "Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow to A.P.M. 1832-1867.

2 In the periodical "Readings of the Imperial Society of History and Antiquities" (1892, book 4) the basis for this is set out that clergy coming from among the heretics being united to the Orthodox Church, about whom there is no doubt of their having been baptized and ordained, must be received by only presenting a written confession of faith and condemnation of their heresy as was practiced by the Seventh Ecumenical Council with regard to the conversion of the Iconoclastic bishops and other clergy, etc., and they must be received, each in his priestly rank, according to the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council, i.e., vested.

Francisco,

Thank you for your posts. It was the earlier post that I was specifically requesting, the one containing the links to the website the article was published on. www.elcathex.com [elcathex.com] is a legitimate website, and that gives credibility to the article. I read your translation, together with an electronic translation of the posted Greek and French. I find that I have a lot of questions. Is the custom of re-baptism the stated custom of the local Greek Orthodox Church (some Orthodox do re-baptize while others do not)? Is this re-baptism something the local Greek Orthodox priest did in violation of the directives of his Church? A proper response needs much information so that it can be effective. One would tend to think that it must be the custom of the local Orthodox Church since the open letter is published by the Greek Catholic exarchate. Yet if the exarchate protested through the appropriate channels there is no reference, and it would be good to see what the whole story is. [I know you do not have the answers to any of these questions, I am just posting them in case someone does have answers.]

Please keep watch on that website and let us know what further details unfold.

And, by the way, I probably should have more clearly explained my query on your use of the term "anabaptist". "Anabaptist" (used in English) is the name given to a Protestant Christian Community that (surprise!) does re-baptize. So it seemed at first that there was some confusion whether the man who was re-baptized was actually Greek Catholic or if he was a Protestant.

As to the custom of re-baptizing Catholics who enter Orthodoxy, there are indeed local Orthodox Churches which do this. The Catholic Church disagrees with this custom, as do I. But it has existed for a long time and there is nothing new about it.

If someone who knows Greek would be interesting in assisting in this thread, we could do some research to determine a full account of what actually happened, and possibly to compose and send a letter to the appropriate authorities in the Greek Orthodox Church to reconsider its practice (if it proves to be something official). Although I suspect that the local Church is already doing something to resolve the situation. News of that would be useful, too!

John

Why these sweeping generalizations? I am a member of the Orthodox Church, born into an Orthodox family. Are you saying it is the policy of the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece to re-baptise converts? If so, then please provide proof that this is the official policy.
Why have you included a directive from the retired Bishop Tikhon of the OCA (Orthodox Church of America)? How is this relevent to the discussion of a person in Greece being re-baptised by a Greek Orthodox priest?

Maybe for the sake of this quote:

Thank you for your post, but I still fail to see what these quotes have to do with the policy of the Greek Orthodox Church of Greece regarding the reception of converts.
This is all just "filler". What is needed is the official policy of the Greek Orthodox of Greece, not comments by a professor or by a retired OCA bishop and also proof that the convert was re-baptised.

If I remember my canon law correctly, I believe that the Roman Church has long had the concept of 'conditional baptism' where the form of the original baptism is in doubt. (I recall a Methodist congregation where the new person was baptised by a flow of wetted petals from flowers.) It is 'defect of form'.

Many Orthodox look askance at the 'sprinkling' of the Roman Ritual and consider it unacceptable, much like the lack of a crowning ceremony at Marriage renders the marriage invalid. (Too bad the children are rendered bastard children as a result.)

Also, just a note on 'anabaptism', although the dictionary refers to 're-baptism', the Anabaptist movement - precursor to today's Baptists - forbade the baptism of children and only permitted 'adults' of choice-making age to receive baptism and admittance to the church. (Although many still maintain the concept of 'god-parents'. Why, I don't know.)

Dr John

If you open the edition of the Mikron Euchologion (Trebnik, Book of Needs) of the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece (something like the official edition of the Church of Greece?) you will find a Service for the Reception in the Orthodox Church of a Former Latin that includes the anoinment with the Holy Myron (that is the right of the Church of Greece to consider as heretics if they believe so and to act according to the Canon 7 of the II Oecumenical Council) but not the prayer of the Holy Myron found at the Baptism Service. Why do not they use this service (both in this particular case or in other cases)? Why do not the bishops in Greece ask their priest to use this service? Tha is the point.

There was time, some twenty years ago and perhaps even more recently, when the Russian Church in Exile was not communion with any other Orthodox church and rebaptized any one who converted to her ranks. If this is an incorrect assertion, please correct the statement.


The reception of converts from the RCC into the various EOCs that make up SCOBA here in the US is variable depending on the jurisdiction.

The assertion is incorrect. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has always been in communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Validity of baptism was at the discretion of the local bishop, as it should be.

Alexandr

Alexandr, although you are right about the fact that validity of baptism was at the discretion of the local bishop, you should have read my statement more closely. I noted that Russian Church in Exile was not in communion with the SCOBA jurisdictions here in the US. I was referring to the Greek Archdiocese, the OCA, and the Antiochan Archdiocese, these three being the major EOCS in Scoba. I talked to the priest who made this statement to me in 1975 and he stands by his comment. Communion with Serbia and Jerusalem is not the same thing. My comments apply to the period two decades ago.