www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology protestant baptism

If I were to become Byzantine Catholic, is previous baptism accepted? I have been in Orthodox catechism, I started it the the notion that my baptism as a protestant when I was 8 would be "adopted", but now we have seemed to reach an impass on this topic and I do not want to go any further until the subject is settled, whether it be with myself or with the Church.

kmaaj,

Firstly, welcome to the forum.

The answer to your question depends in large part on the nature of your baptism - in which Church you were baptized and the formula that Church uses in baptizing. Give us a bit of background on those facts (the first at least, because knowing from which Church you are coming can often clarify the baptismal formula used).

Many years,

Neil

If there is any doubt, either about the fact of your baptism or the formula used, you may be "conditionally baptized". Most Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States accept any Trinitarian baptism with water. Baptism in the name of Jesus alone I do not think would be acceptable. Certain sects and denominations that overtly reject the Trinity are not acceptable. Groups the Orthodox consider cults, such as the Mormons, would not be acceptable.

The baptism was Disciples of Christ in 1969, at that time they were a more traditional denomination, mom has lost the certificate and their historical society has no record of it. I have nothing but my memory and family witness. No matter, the priest of my parish (Antiochian)is rejecting it outright and I am praying and meditating daily as to why this bothers me so much. He is saying that even though it was a Trinitarian baptism, they do not reflect Trinitarian living and there is no Apostolic Succession. I am aware that the OCA, Greek, or Serb parishes would be more prone to adopting my existing baptism. I am 8 months into my catechism. I am violating the spiritual father/catechumen relationship just by bringing it up here.

This is very peculiar, considering the predominance of former Protestants among the Antiochian Archdiocese clergy.

Stuart, FWIW, my priest has made no mention of any dialog with his bishop on this, and that bothers me as well. I am inclined to believe this is an individual's decision.

dear kmaaj:

I don't want to bring discord into your relationship with your spiritual father, but just as a general rule, your previous baptism (as you have described it {in the name of the Triune God, and within a church that at that point believing in the tenets of the Symbol of Faith (the Nicean Creed)) would be accepted without any problem in the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine rite.

As to why it bothers you, maybe you feel that they are casting aspersions on your childhood faith in the true God?

I myself wouldn't mind getting re-baptised as an adult (but I would insist on triple full immersion {otherwise what's the point of doing it "half-way"}) - but then I have some anabaptist tendencies....

Herb

I can't answer your question in general, but only with a case that I know about. Several years ago, an acquaintance of mine entered the Church through the Latin Rite because 2 different Byzantine Catholic priests (one Melkite, one Ruthenian) would not accept his Protestant Baptism and he felt very strongly about the issue. He has since transferred to the Ukrainian Church and is happily attending a Ruthenian parish. Another family I know came into the Church last year from a Calvinist background. They were conditionally baptized, but that was their own choice. Our priest would have been happy to receive them by Chrismation.

Elizabeth

This is an interesting question, kmaaj, and I understand why your priest's insistence upon baptism to be painful. I do not know if the Antiochian Church has a policy on how to receive Protestant converts. Perhaps they leave the matter to the discretion of the parish pastor.

Before you make any decision on this matter, may I suggest that you fully acquaint yourself with the arguments and concerns that animate the Orthodox traditionalist. Read through the various articles that are devoted to this question at the Orthodox Information Center [orthodoxinfo.com]. They may help you to understand why your pastor is taking the position that he is. The Orthodox disagree on how to regard the validity of baptisms administered outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church and they disagree on the proper way to receive Catholics and Orthodox. This disagreement is nothing new--it goes back to the early centuries of the Church.

Your baptism was administered in an evangelical-Protestant community that simply does not have and never has had a catholic understanding of the holy sacraments. The Disciples of Christ are an interesting denomination within evangelical Protestantism because of its practice of weekly celebration of the Supper; but it still cannot be described as catholic in the way, for example, that the Lutherans might be described as catholic. Can you not appreciate why an Orthodox priest might have serious reservations about the validity and efficacy of baptism as administered in the Disciples of Christ?

Though I have not had to face this question directly, I did have to confront a similar question when I became Catholic. I was an ordained Anglican priest. I always considered myself as catholic, duly ordained in the apostolic succession, yet the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican Orders. And so I had to be unconditionally (re-) ordained to both the Diaconate and Priesthood. I finally agreed to do so, because I did not want Catholics having any doubts about my priestly identity and the validity of my priestly ministry. Perhaps you might consider surrendering yourself to Orthodox baptism for similar reasons: though you may be utterly confident about the sacramental reality of your Disciples' baptism, if your fellow Orthodox do not share this confidence, then perhaps this is something you need to do for them.

I hope this helps a little.

Faithfully,
Fr Alvin Kimel

If the Disciples of Christ were not properly trinitarian, or did not use the proper formula, or did not baptize with water, or see baptism as either the sacrament of reconcilliation or as merely a commemoration... any of these render a "baptism" not a baptism.

Probably, part of why it would bother one is realizing that one thought one was Christian, but was not truly Christian by not having "put on Christ"...

In the Catholic Communion, it is a serious thing to either not recognize non-Catholic baptisms or re-baptize.

Recognition of baptism is not a matter of the whim of one pastor or another. The Church has provided guidelines as to which churches' baptism is recognized. It is not up to individual presbyters to make these rules.

Of course it all depends on what "Protestant" church did it and when (eg those churches now doing baptism but not the Trinitarian forumula are not recognized).

And I am not sure that "conditional baptism" is legitimately done much if at all these days (at least with non-Catholic baptizands).

What is particularly novel in the DOC is their insistence that only lay Elders may normally preside at the Eucharist but that only Ordained clergy may normally preach.

Ancient Christian tradition holds that anyone may Baptize in an emergency, so the validity of Orders should not be part of the discussion on the validity of a Baptism. Besides, the question of the fitness of the presider was settled with the Donatist controversy 1600 years ago.

I'd certainly be interested to know if the sixty-odd percent of their clergy who are Protestant converts were all rebaptized. But this may be "inside baseball", as there seems to be a long-simmering dispute between the ethnic cradle Antiochians and the newly-arrived converts.

[quote=Fr_Kimel]....though you may be utterly confident about the sacramental reality of your Disciples' baptism, if your fellow Orthodox do not share this confidence, then perhaps this is something you need to do [i]for them[/i].[/quote]

I have admitted that if I were to do it, it would be strictly out of obedience and not an act of faith. To which he replied it would not be done until my mindset swings more to an act of faith. So, even if I agreed to it, add another hurdle. Unless I lie.

I am trying to put myself into your pastor's shoes. It sounds like he is inviting you to embrace fully the Orthodox understanding of Church and sacrament. This is an understanding that is radically different from that which you were taught in the Disciples of Christ. To become Orthodox, just as to become Catholic, means subjecting yourself to the mind of the Church and allowing the Church to teach you the mysteries of Christ. It means abandoning private judgment. Your pastor's insistence upon baptism poses this abandonment of private judgment and surrender to Christ and his Church in a very direct and powerful way.

Have you witnessed an Orthodox baptism yet? Is it possible that Christ is presenting you this opportunity to give yourself more fully to him? Is not an act of obedience to Christ and his Church also an act of faith? Surely to separate the two, i.e., obedience and faith, is a very Protestant way of thinking. When Christ calls me to step out of the boat and walk on the water, am I not both obeying him and trusting him? This is the "obedience of faith."