www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Clarification Needed on Status of NonOrthodox Baptism

Dear Joe and everybody,

I am not sure if SCOBA does in fact accept all baptisms done with water in the name of the three persons of the Trinity.

Here is a message from a deacon of the Coptic Church in the UK. He is speaking of the baptism he received from the Plymouth Brethren....and although he is Oriental Orthodox I would think that his rationale would also apply to the Eastern Orthodox?

"For myself one of the main determining factors is whether or not a particular Christian group has a sacramental view of baptism. In my own case I came from the Plymouth Brethren which explicitly rejected a sacramental view. When I was baptized in that group it was meant as a public statement that I had already become a Christian through a personal commitment to Christ at some time in the past.

"Therefore when I became Orthodox I did not consider that I was being re-baptized since my previous baptism had not meant to accomplish what the Church means by baptism.

"I am particularly interested in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. At present, as you know, when a Roman Catholic becomes Coptic Orthodox they will be baptized because the Coptic Orthodox Church does not accept Roman Catholic baptism. But if a Roman Catholic became Syrian Orthodox they would not be baptized.

"Now it has always been the policy of our communion to receive those coming from the Chalcedonian community [Byzantine Orthodox] by confession of faith and rejection of error only. This has been our practice from the time of Dioscorus. We have never baptized Chalcedonians, recognising that they are in a strong sense, still of the Church, though from our point of view in error in some regards."

And may I say MERRY CHRISTMAS - CHRIST IS BORN! to all who are celebrating Nativity today.

Triple immersion at Baptism? An importance was laid upon triple immersion by the Church of Rome and the Roman missionaries in Britain did not recognise the ordination of Celtic priests if they had been baptized by a single immersion - a peculiarity which the Church in Ireland and Britain shared with the Church in Spain.

In the time of St Theodore of Canterbury, Rome's primatial bishop in Britain, the possibility of the priests having been invalidly baptized was considered. "Si quis presbiter ordinatus deprehendit se non esse baptizatus, baptizetur et ordinetur iterum et omnes quos prius baptizavit baptizentur", says the "Poenitentiale Theodori" (Lib. II, cap. iii, 13), and in cap ix of the same book, after ordering the reordination of those ordained by Scottish and British bishops, "qui in Pascha et tonsua catholici
non sunt", and the asperging of churches consecrated by them, Theodore adds: "Et qui ex horum similiter gente vel quicunque de baptismo suo dubitaverit, baptizetur".

Saint Theodore recognised neither episcopal consecration nor baptism as performed by the Celtic Church. Eddius tells us that he insisted on reconsecrating Saint Chad, "through every episcopal grade," and
demanded the rebaptism of all members of the Celtic Church.(75) He also ordered a year's penance for anyone receiving communion from Celtic clerics.

This emphasis on triple immersion was maintained, by the way, all the way up to the 17th century.

Gerald of Wales, in his early 12th c. "Jewel of the Church," says,

"Midwives, friends, and advisors of a wife who is with child ought to assist her in preparing a trough of water in the home, so that if she should give birth unexpectedly, and the infant be in danger of death, they may immerse (the baby) straightway three times, saying: I baptize thee in the name of the Father (immerse) and of the Son (immerse) and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. (immerse)"

St. Theodore, 7th c. Archbishop of Canterbury, has in his Penitential:

"If any Bishop or Presbyter shall celebrate in Baptism not a threefold submerging, but shall submerse one time, which would seem to give it in the death of Christ, he shall be deposed, for the Lord did not say to us, "Baptize in My death," but "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (cap. xxxviii. 1, xlviii.20), Thorpe, Vol. 2, pp. 45, 58.

A Canon of the Council of Calchuth (or Cloveshoo or Chalkheath, take your pick) in the year 816, says: "Also let the Presbyters know, when they administer Sacred Baptism, that they shall not pour water over the infants' heads, but they shall always be submerged in the font, as the Son of God offered example in Himself to every believer, when He was thrice immersed in the waves of Jordan."

If someone is baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran Church and converts to Catholicism, are both considered valid?

The issue really is whether confirmation / chrismation could be repeated or not. We Catholics think that it cannot be repeated, but the Orthodox do. When an Orthodox person becomes Jewish or Muslim then returns to Orthodoxy, he is chrismated too upon his return.

As for chrismation versus vesting, the Greeks chrismate converted Catholic priests as well. The Russians are the ones who simply vest -- but then, Russian practice has often been to receive Catholics by confession of faith, without chrismation. (Some Russians, on the other hand, chrismate or even baptize Catholic converts, even priests)

By the way, you sound like you've returned to the Catholic Church. Welcome back then.

Baptism -- in theory, yes. Confirmation, never. They will have to be confirmed upon their conversion to the Catholic Church.

However, given the theological craziness in much of contemporary Protestantism, I think that the time has come for the Catholic Church to revert to its pre-VII policy of conditionally baptizing ALL Protestant converts, even Episcopalians (save if they had been baptized in High Church Anglican and Lutheran parishes). Here in the Philippines, it is common to conditionally baptize converts from the Philippine Independent Church, which is in communion with, and derives its "orders" from, the Episcopalians. The reason? The strong anti-Trinitarian and Unitarian strain in that ecclesial community, with many "priests" holding extremely rationalistic views of Baptism.

Instead of agonizing over the Orthodox Church's ambivalence about Catholic baptisms, I think that we Catholics should agonize over the increasing numbers of invalid baptisms in our own Church. It is no secret that many priests use invalid formulae for Baptism, or give it a meaning that radically departs from basic Christian orthodoxy.

Personally, I have witnessed a mass baptism inside a church that was so careless and so perfunctory that even the witnesses (myself included) wondered whether the priest actually baptized the children (the priest mumbled everything and did everything very, very quickly, with many if not most ceremonies omitted). Given what I've seen and known of so many priests in my country, their extreme carelessness with the sacraments and their ignorance of much basic theology, I fear that many invalid sacraments -- perhaps not excluding baptisms -- are being done. (I myself have been on the receiving end of invalid absolutions)

Well then, thanks to Miller pointing out the obvious which I totally forgot, my question is both for Catholics and Orthodox!

asianpilgrim,

You say "many," but is that really true? I know there was a wacko parish in Australia which practices these "baptisms," but the parish has come under some major censure from its bishop and I think its priest may've been excommunicated already. I know there are places where this does happen, but "many" places? I would hope not.

So the million dollar question is: does the extreme variance in Orthodoxy on baptizing, vesting, or receiving by profession of faith certain converts cause any sort of problem? Or none at all?

Father Ambrose,

Could you elaborate on why you think the rationale of the Orientals would be the same as the Eastern Orthodox?

Alexis

Here is a hypothetical scenario and it would be interesting to get both a Catholic response and an Orthodox response:

Suppose a man believes that he was properly baptized and chrismated. as an infant and has good reason to think so. Let us suppose that the Church accepts that he was properly baptized and chrismated. He remains a communicating member and then eventually goes to seminary and is ordained a deacon and then a priest.

But, in actual fact, he was never baptized or chrismated. However, neither the man nor anyone in the Church suspected that he wasn't and so there was complete ignorance about this.

In this scenario, is the man a Christian and is he validly ordained? Can he administer the sacraments to others? If he became a bishop, would he be able to ordain others?

What would the Catholic Church say? What would the Orthodox Church say?

I am curious to get some responses because if my Church was wrong in accepting my baptism, then I am technically not baptized and not a Christian. Could it be possible to go one's entire life believing that one is properly initiated into the Church to find out on judgment day that a mistake was made?

Joe

Well, Joe, to your last question I would say yes, it's certainly possible. And I'm sure it's happened before. But I think most of us would say God's grace is boundless and He distributes it wherever He wills upon whomever He wills. My personal opinion is that one should make every possible effort to find out the actual facts, but if one has done the best he can do at that, it wouldn't trouble be any further. But I would definitely want to find it out.

My personal belief is that God would probably supply what was lacking in a scenario like the one you described. But I don't know if either Church would officially condone that.

Alexis

Okay, let me pose one additional question: What if you become convinced that having been baptized by single immersion, you should be (re)baptized in the Church, But the Church refuses and will only receive you by Chrismation?

My thinking is that one should be obedient to the Church and accept that if the Church receives you by Chrismation, then you will be given the necessary baptismal grace, even if your single immersion baptism was not valid.

And I have to confess that I'm still confused as to why Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches accept the baptisms from the evangelical churches. My understanding is that in Roman Catholic theology the one baptizing must intend to do what the Church does. But evangelical protestants do not intend to do what the Church does. They have a completely different, heretical understanding of baptism. Baptism, for evangelicals, is merely an optional ordinance. It does not confer grace and it has nothing to do with salvation. For them, it is not a sacrament. It is only a symbolic act that demonstrates that you have accepted Christ. This is not what Orthodox and Roman Catholics do (nor what Lutherans or Anglicans do) when they baptize.

Joe

I don't know. I was baptized Methodist with water being poured on my head three times. Not immersion, but baptism by triple pouring. And Methodists understand baptism in the same way as Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans. Would the Orthodox consider that baptism valid, i.e. would they only chrismate someone like me if he converted?

Alexis

I guess what troubles me (and this troubled me even 15 years ago when I became Catholic) is that the Catholic Church is assuming that evangelicals have the intention "to do what the Church does" when they baptize. But they clearly do not intend to do what the Catholic Church does. The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church) intends to make the candidate a Christian by sacramentally washing away his sins and bestowing upon him, in the sacrament, the new life of Christ and the Holy Spirit. In Orthodox/Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican (and some Methodist) churches, one is "born again" and made a Christian in Baptism.

Evangelicals (such as baptist) do not even believe that baptism is a sacrament. One must already be "born again" by faith and must already have the Holy Spirit in order to be baptized. According to evangelical theology, baptism is only symbolic. There is no grace given in the "ordinance." It is normally required for local church membership, but it is not required for salvation. Baptism does not save,it merely illustrates that one is already saved. This is clearly not what Catholics and Orthodox intend to do when they baptize.

But I am troubled because I can never get a clear answer to this from Catholics or Orthodox. All of the documents that I read brush over the issue and never address it. If such baptisms are valid, then why doesn't someone in the Church explain clearly why those baptisms are valid? In other words, how is it that such evangelical baptisms are, in fact, what the Church intends to do?

Of course, when we get to practice of Orthodoxy, then it gets even more complicated. Because we not only have the issue of proper intention, but we also have the issue of proper form. The strict Orthodox that I have read (such as Patrick Barnes and the orthodoxinfo.com site), hold that economia can only be used to accept baptisms that would ordinarily (in terms of form) be acceptable to the Orthodox Church. In other words, only triple immersion baptisms (or perhaps triple effusion baptisms) can be accepted by economia. Single immersion baptisms cannot (according to the strict view). This is why Orthodox, such as myself, would not be allowed to commune in some of the very strict churches (such as the Church of Greece I believe).

But perhaps there is another side to the story. When the disciples saw a group of outsiders doing good works in Christ's name, Jesus said "whoever is not against us is for us," (Mark 9:30). Also, if we make too many regulations and then set people up so that they will trip over them, are we not doing what the Pharisees did in adding burdens and not lifting a finger to help them?

What I mean to say is that if we are too particular, then we will be shutting millions of people out of the kingdom. Perhaps this is why the use of economia exists. Perhaps it is also why the Orthodox Churches should come together and make one clear statement along the lines of... Though we have disagreements over the status of non-Orthodox baptisms and how to receive converts, we hereby agree to accept all of the decisions of each other's jurisdiction. So that anyone received into the Orthodox Church in a manner prescribed by the local Orthodox bishop is accepted by all Orthodox.

And for Catholics, I think the CDF ought to issue a document stating that evangelicals (such as baptists) do have the intention to do what the Church does and it ought to explain why.

I don't know, what do you all think? Shouldn't all of us be more generous and apply economia to this confusing situation?

Joe

JOE:

Christ is born!! Glorify Him!!

Did it ever occur to you that the reason the CDF doesn't do this is an ecumenical concern for our relationships with evangelicals? The Catholic Church takes the baptism done by the proper form and applies her own criteria--its form of economia--while not making evangelicals bristle. After all, what would you feel like if someone told you that what you were doing is actually something you deny doing? Something along the order of getting inside your head and finding an intention you deny but having the affrontery of telling you that you did indeed have it. It would be a slap in the face: "Hey, dummy, you're really doing a Catholic thing even though you deny being a Catholic or doing the Catholic thing." And we're back to the polemics and animosity of the Counter Reformation. After all, it only applies--really--when people swim the Tiber. Otherwise, let's let God be God and not worry ourselves about the details.

Remember the three surprises in Heaven: the people you thought would be there, aren't; the people you were sure wouldn't make it, are there; and most surprising of all, you're there. (Well, you might not be surprised, but I sure will be.)

You keep saying you're troubled. Go talk to your spiritual father and let him take this away. You're incorporated into the Body of Christ, the Church. We don't know who else is beyond the visible borders of the Church. Isn't the lavish, endless mercy of God a wonder? Who knows where and with whom He is working? Let's let Him surprise us so we're all speechless.

BOB

Dear Joe,

What I positively adore about Orthodoxy is how questions like this can never be pre-determined outside consultation with the local Eparch/parish priest.

The question "Is non-Orthodox baptism valid?" is something that is contingent upon the decision in a particular case of someone converting to Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox Catholic Church affirms that the "efficacy" of the Mysteries cannot exist outside of communion with and in the Church herself - or that if such efficacy does exist under those circumstances, then only God, and not we, may know this.

Once the communion is established, that is when the Church will decide on the status of sacraments a person received prior to this. If someone's baptism is declared as being valid, then, it is not because the baptism by itself is such in the Church's estimation, but because communion with the Church is what "completes" or "activates" the sacrament's "efficacy."

Sorry for all the Latin terms . . .

Alex

So, Joe, if someone like me were to be received in the Orthodox Churches, my triple pouring baptism would be validated. Is that what you're saying when you say "effusion"?

By the way, I had no idea that Orthodox Churches like the Church of Greece wouldn't allow Orthodox such as yourself to commune. That is rather serious, IMHO.

Bob,

While I agree with some of what you say, the idea that Catholics would accept potentially invalidly "baptized" people to convert to the Church without even a conditional baptism for fear of offending the sensibilities of the religious organizations these people are leaving is, to me, not only incredibly illogical but incredibly blasphemous. Surely that is not the reasoning of the Church.

Alexis