Do Eastern Orthodox view Protestant Baptisms As Valid?

[pacloc]

I am afraid that you are, in fact, mistaken. The Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of Eastern Orthodox sacraments. It would only be a relatively recent development, after Constantinople fell to the Muslims, that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have rejected the validity of Catholic sacraments.

I’m sorry, I think I was wrong about the Catholic Church’s view of baptism outside of the RCC. It does look like they accept them as initiation into the Body of Christ even from the days of Trent. I think I misunderstood what a Catholic priest once was saying in a lecture. As for the other Sacraments, I don’t know where to look to see if the RCC viewed Orthodox Sacraments as valid before 2VC.

As for your comment about the Orthodox recently rejecting the validity of Catholic Sacraments, do you have any source to show that they did previously view Catholic Sacraments as valid. Of course this would have to be after the schism at the beginning of the 2nd millennium.

 

[twf]

I’m sorry, I think I was wrong about the Catholic Church’s view of baptism outside of the RCC. It does look like they accept them as initiation into the Body of Christ even from the days of Trent. I think I misunderstood what a Catholic priest once was saying in a lecture. As for the other Sacraments, I don’t know where to look to see if the RCC viewed Orthodox Sacraments as valid before 2VC.

As for your comment about the Orthodox recently rejecting the validity of Catholic Sacraments, do you have any source to show that they did previously view Catholic Sacraments as valid. Of course this would have to be after the schism at the beginning of the 2nd millennium.

Eastern Catholic priests were never re-ordained when coming to Catholicism from Orthodoxy…not at any point in history. That says something.
Orthodoxy has had varied practices on this front - receiving Catholic priests by vesting only or re-ordaining in other cases.
Again, as I said earlier, the Catholic Church would agree with Orthodoxy that sacraments flow only from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Christ…but from our perspective, by virtue of apostolic succession, your Churches, united to your bishops, are still in a communion of sorts with the one Catholic Church…though an imperfect communion.

 

[Peter_J]

It would only be a relatively recent development, after Constantinople fell to the Muslims, that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have rejected the validity of Catholic sacraments.

Kind of like how any newspaper I disagree with is a failing news outlet. But your post illustrates why I come to CAF: all the love.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

As for your comment about the Orthodox recently rejecting the validity of Catholic Sacraments, do you have any source to show that they did previously view Catholic Sacraments as valid. Of course this would have to be after the schism at the beginning of the 2nd millennium.

The Great Schism of 1054 was not as abrupt as it seems in retrospect. East and West remained in contact and attempted re-communion. It was the fall of Constantinople that forced an end to such efforts. Constantinople was now under the Turks, who were at war with the Catholic Church, and the Patriarch was forced to fall in line if he wanted to stay. Likewise, I think it fair to say that Moscow’s historical anti-Catholic rhetoric stems more from power politics than theology. I certainly would not say that Catholic Popes and other Catholic bishops were blameless. It is only quite recently that the Catholic Church has pursued friendly contacts with Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

 

[steve93]

The Great Schism of 1054 was not as abrupt as it seems in retrospect. East and West remained in contact and attempted re-communion. It was the fall of Constantinople that forced an end to such efforts. Constantinople was now under the Turks, who were at war with the Catholic Church, and the Patriarch was forced to fall in line if he wanted to stay. Likewise, I think it fair to say that Moscow’s historical anti-Catholic rhetoric stems more from power politics than theology. I certainly would not say that Catholic Popes and other Catholic bishops were blameless. It is only quite recently that the Catholic Church has pursued friendly contacts with Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

And also the 4th “crusade” and additionally later Catholic attacks against Orthodoxy, for example the Teutonic invasion which was defeated by Prince Alexander Nevsky.

 

[twf]

And also the 4th “crusade” and additionally later Catholic attacks against Orthodoxy, for example the Teutonic invasion which was defeated by Prince Alexander Nevsky.

Yes. And some Orthodox groups have long memories… even though most modern Catholics are not in any way descended from the groups responsible for these actions.

 

[prodromos]

Constantinople was now under the Turks, who were at war with the Catholic Church, and the Patriarch was forced to fall in line if he wanted to stay.

Which children’s book did you get this from?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

There is a split among the Orthodox about the validity of non-Orthodox baptisms. There is no single answer.

 

[Reuben_J]

That may be the case. However, if it is, I strongly suspect that it was over concern as to whether the Trinitarian formula was used. Also, if conditional baptism was often used, that demonstrates that the baptisms of such Protestants were not automatically deemed to be invalid.

In my parish, Protestant converts from mainline Protestant churches have no problem – their Baptism is deemed valid, thus no re-baptism is required.

There were converts from other Christian churches which the parish priests were not very familiar with. Those were screened through to determine whether their previous Baptism was valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church, otherwise they would have to undergo baptism again.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I’m sorry, I think I was wrong about the Catholic Church’s view of baptism outside of the RCC. It does look like they accept them as initiation into the Body of Christ even from the days of Trent. I think I misunderstood what a Catholic priest once was saying in a lecture. As for the other Sacraments, I don’t know where to look to see if the RCC viewed Orthodox Sacraments as valid before 2VC.

As for your comment about the Orthodox recently rejecting the validity of Catholic Sacraments, do you have any source to show that they did previously view Catholic Sacraments as valid. Of course this would have to be after the schism at the beginning of the 2nd millennium.

Do Orthodox accept single immersion baptism by groups like Baptist?

 

[pacloc]

Do Orthodox accept single immersion baptism by groups like Baptist?

I think most jurisdictions do even though they really would prefer a triple immersion or even triple pouring as long as the baptism is in the Name of the Trinity. I know that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) prefers to almost rebaptize all converts because of the loss of the standard triple immersion. But I think most Greek, Antiochian, OCA, and maybe some others usually will receive converts by Chrismation if they have been baptized in water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

I believe St. Augustine in describing how to receive non-orthodox Christians into the Church, compared the form of baptism to the tattoo that a soldier receives once they join the military. If someone has received the tattoo from an outside place, the tattoo does not really make them part of the military group. But if they do later join the military, it is not necessary for them to get another tattoo, but now the tattoo does in fact signify their belonging to the military group. So since the triple immersion, that the Fathers of the Church understood as the proper form for Baptism, is not being done anymore, it is hard to justify not to rebaptize almost all converts.

 

[pacloc]

There is a split among the Orthodox about the validity of non-Orthodox baptisms. There is no single answer.

What do you mean here? Are you saying that some Orthodox teach that the Sacrament of Baptism can be done outside the Orthodox Church? Are you saying that Sacraments can be found outside the Orthodox Church? Do you have any sources, and preferably Saints, not some questionable “theologians” that do not teach from the traditions of the Church.

 

[twf]

I think most jurisdictions do even though they really would prefer a triple immersion or even triple pouring as long as the baptism is in the Name of the Trinity. I know that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) prefers to almost rebaptize all converts because of the loss of the standard triple immersion. But I think most Greek, Antiochian, OCA, and maybe some others usually will receive converts by Chrismation if they have been baptized in water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

I believe St. Augustine in describing how to receive non-orthodox Christians into the Church, compared the form of baptism to the tattoo that a soldier receives once they join the military. If someone has received the tattoo from an outside place, the tattoo does not really make them part of the military group. But if they do later join the military, it is not necessary for them to get another tattoo, but now the tattoo does in fact signify their belonging to the military group. So since the triple immersion, that the Fathers of the Church understood as the proper form for Baptism, is not being done anymore, it is hard to justify not to rebaptize almost all converts.

That sound similar to Catholic theology in regards to those who are confirmed / christmated while in a state of sin. They are marked with the seal of the Holy Spirit, but they do not benefit from the grace of the sacrament until they are absolved…then the empty form is made whole.

 

[pablope]

What do you mean here? Are you saying that some Orthodox teach that the Sacrament of Baptism can be done outside the Orthodox Church? Are you saying that Sacraments can be found outside the Orthodox Church? Do you have any sources, and preferably Saints, not some questionable “theologians” that do not teach from the traditions of the Church.

So…let me understand this…you are saying then that there are no Christians outside of the OC?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

What do you mean here? Are you saying that some Orthodox teach that the Sacrament of Baptism can be done outside the Orthodox Church? Are you saying that Sacraments can be found outside the Orthodox Church? Do you have any sources, and preferably Saints, not some questionable “theologians” that do not teach from the traditions of the Church.

I mean only what you said in your previous post. A person baptised outside the Orthodox Church in water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be accepted into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation and without needing rebaptism. This supported by Canon 7 of the Council of Laodicea, c. 364 AD, which specifies that former adherents of certain heresies, such as Novationism, once they have renounced the heresy, should be Chrismated, without mentioning any need to first be rebaptized. Although this Council is not reckoned as an Ecumenical Council, many of its canons are recognized as authoritative and Canon 7 is consistent with the approach taken by other Councils. For example, the Council of Nicaea did not require rebaptism of Arians who wished to become Orthodox, undoubtably because Arians used the orthodox Baptismal formula. the opposite position, that all those baptized in a heretical “church” must be rebaptized, was the position of St. Cyprian of Carthage, but it has never been adopted by the Orthodox Church as a whole.

 

[ChaosGamma]

And also the 4th “crusade” and additionally later Catholic attacks against Orthodoxy, for example the Teutonic invasion which was defeated by Prince Alexander Nevsky.

Ah, the Fourth Crusade. The one where the son of the deposed emperor invited the Crusaders, against the orders of the Pope, to come to Constantinople? That Fourth Crusade? The Crusaders certainly bear blame, but it was the Byzantines who brought them there in the first place and further stupidity on their part that caused things to happen as they did. It was hardly evil Rome ordering an attack on the Greeks.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ah, the Fourth Crusade. The one where the son of the deposed emperor invited the Crusaders, against the orders of the Pope, to come to Constantinople? That Fourth Crusade? The Crusaders certainly bear blame, but it was the Byzantines who brought them there in the first place and further stupidity on their part that caused things to happen as they did. It was hardly evil Rome ordering an attack on the Greeks.

When it comes to “blame”, in the Fourth Crusade, there was plenty to go around. But one thing the Crusaders should NOT be blamed for is the eventual fall of Constantinople, as some Orthodox do. In the Fourth Crusade, Constantinople was taken by 8,000 Frankish knights and some Italian sailors who were not long thereafter thrown out by the Greeks. Two hundred years later, the Turks took Constantinople with an army of 200,000 armed with cannon that the Greeks did not have.

The only wonder is that the Turks didn’t take the whole of Europe, or most of it. They came close. Had Kara Mustafa not regarded the Vienna Woods on his flank as impenetrable and neglected to sufficiently guard it, they likely would have. As it was, they took the whole of the Balkans and a good part of Russia.

 

[Reuben_J]

I mean only what you said in your previous post. A person baptised outside the Orthodox Church in water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be accepted into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation and without needing rebaptism.

As a Catholic, I would understand and agree with this.

 

[prodromos]

Ah, the Fourth Crusade. The one where the son of the deposed emperor invited the Crusaders, against the orders of the Pope, to come to Constantinople? That Fourth Crusade? The Crusaders certainly bear blame, but it was the Byzantines who brought them there in the first place and further stupidity on their part that caused things to happen as they did. It was hardly evil Rome ordering an attack on the Greeks.

The Byzantines had nothing to do with it, and were quite confused when the crusaders initially rocked up. One man who had been kicked off the throne asked for help, and the Doge of Venice saw an opportunity to exact revenge. Rome became complicit when the flood of loot and relics came into their Church and they put Latins on the Patriarchal throne.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

When it comes to “blame”, in the Fourth Crusade, there was plenty to go around. But one thing the Crusaders should NOT be blamed for is the eventual fall of Constantinople, as some Orthodox do.

I agree.

In a broader sense, both Rome and Constantinople are to blame. If they had been less intransigent on their theological positions, and (sorry) if Rome had been a little less concerned with preserving its hegemony (theological and political) Constantinople could have been saved.