As someone who is seriously looking into Orthodoxy, I found your post insightful. If you’ll excuse me, however, I do have some comments to make.
I find it sadly amusing when someone who has no interest at all in converting gets all sparked up and offended because people from their own church have agreed to be baptized in order to become Orthodox. I used to feel exactly the same way
!
The reason many Catholics get rattled up about this is because it goes straight into the validity of their own baptism (mine included). We, as Catholics, believe that the Sacrament (Mystery) of Baptism is only conferred once. If we have to be re-baptized in order to join the Eastern Orthodox Church, then we are pretty much admitting that there is at least a possibility that our Catholic baptism was not valid. That is troublesome (and understandably so) to some Catholics (again, me included).
My Orthodox priest informed me that I would be received through confession and communion, as per Archbishop Job (Memory Eternal!) whom I had the pleasure of talking with on a few occasions. He knew I was a practicing Byzantine Greek Catholic at the time, so that may have had something to do with the decision, but I don’t see why since my baptism was according to the Latin practice of pouring. Anyway I know that this was an extension of Economia on his part, and I am gratified by it.
This would be my choice for receiving a Catholic convert if the candidate’s baptism and confirmation are deemed valid.
I told my priest that I would have much preferred to be received by Chrismation with the other converts, and he said “I am glad you said that, I agree”… and so it was by Chrismation I was received. This, of course, is still an extension of Economia.
Chrismation seems to be the preferred way of receiving Catholic converts into Orthodoxy. In principle, I find this method better, if for no other reason out of
economia. But even receiving Catholic converts through Chrismation (the Orthodox equivalent of the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation) implies that the Catholic confirmation is not valid (Catholics believe that confirmation is also received only once). Is Chrismation done because Orthodox believe the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation not to be valid or do they believe this mystery can be confer more than once? That would be a theological difference between our Churches.
I must add that I was all on fire for this, and if the bishop had decided I should be dunked three times in a tub I would have accepted it without any reservations! I wanted to be Orthodox.
If I decided to convert to Orthodoxy I would consider being re-baptized (i.e. being “dunked three times in a tub”) only if I concluded that there was a possibility that my Catholic baptism was not valid. So far, I have not reached that conclusion through my studies. Even the discussions between recent Popes of Rome and Patriarchs of Constantinople seemed to indicate that despite the many differences between our Churches, the latter does not considered Catholic sacraments to be invalid.
But in reality it’s none of their business unless they want to be Orthodox too, and if they cannot accept this, they are simply not ready.
Actually, with all due respect, if we talk about future unity between our Churches then whether our Catholic baptism is considered valid or not is everyone’s business. Furthermore, it is not a matter of converts to Orthodoxy not being “ready”. The Eastern Orthodox Church itself does not have all the answers on this regard. That is why some jurisdictions re-baptize and other chrismate. And yet others receive their Catholic converts into the Orthodox Church by confession and communion. We, in the Roman Catholic Church, receive Orthodox converts by a profession of faith since we believe all Orthodox mysteries (i.e. sacraments) to be valid. This is not the case with other churches such as the Anglican. When Anglican priests, for example, convert to Catholicism they are not re-baptized, but receive all other sacraments including Holy Orders (if accepted into the Catholic clergy) since we do not believe them to be valid.
This, of course, is still an extension of Economia.
I am still trying to understand the concept of
economia. In principle I agree with it because it seems to go hand in hand with the “authority to bind things”, plus it goes with the pastoral prerogatives of the bishop and pastor (parish priest). For the most part, it seems like the Christian thing to do (of course, always on a case by case basis). That being said, if out of
economia a bishop can decide to receive a Catholic convert through chrismation, that means that his/hers baptism must have been valid since baptism (in most cases) is necessary for salvation and always required to make us part of the Church and the Body of Christ.
Economia or not, no one can be part of the Church without a valid baptism. And that is true, as I understand it, in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
