Do Orthodox believe Catholic infant baptism by pouring (not immersion) to be valid?

[WesleyF]

I think all Orthodox practice infant baptism by immersion. Do they then view the Catholic practice of baptism by pouring water instead of immersion to be valid?

 

[Rawb]

I think all Orthodox practice infant baptism by immersion. Do they then view the Catholic practice of baptism by pouring water instead of immersion to be valid?

I think there’s a small group that would re-do all Sacraments of anyone wishing to come into Holy Orthodoxy, but the vast majority do not. We don’t re-baptize.

When I was Chrismated too, because I had received Roman Confirmation I was only anointed on the forehead, not the ears, hands, feet, etc. as is done with other groups.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think there’s a small group that would re-do all Sacraments of anyone wishing to come into Holy Orthodoxy, but the vast majority do not. We don’t re-baptize.

When I was Chrismated too, because I had received Roman Confirmation I was only anointed on the forehead, not the ears, hands, feet, etc. as is done with other groups.

In addition to that, there are also some who will accept trinitarian baptisms by full immersion as a matter of oikonomia, but not baptisms by affusion (pouring) or aspersion. By the Canons, I think all who are coming from heterodox churches should be baptized again (this is maybe one of the hot topics which might have to be debated sometime in the future of Orthodoxy), but this is often ignored for reasons of economy as I mentioned above, so long as the converts were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Harpazo]

I think all Orthodox practice infant baptism by immersion. Do they then view the Catholic practice of baptism by pouring water instead of immersion to be valid?

The practice going back to the Didache in the 1st century cites immersion as being the standard, and then lists others as options in the event that immersion is not possible. I don’t know when the Latin practice of pouring instead of immersion arose, but from the Orthodox perspective, immersion would be the standard.

If one was baptized by pouring as an infant and wanted to become Orthodox, they would most likely be received by chrismation (confirmation). It would not be an affirmation of the previous baptism, however. The chrismation would fill whatever may have been lacking in the previous baptism (if anything was lacking).

Hope that helps!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[WesleyF]

In addition to that, there are also some who will accept trinitarian baptisms by full immersion as a matter of oikonomia, but not baptisms by affusion (pouring) or aspersion. By the Canons, I think all who are coming from heterodox churches should be baptized again (this is maybe one of the hot topics which might have to be debated sometime in the future of Orthodoxy), but this is often ignored for reasons of economy as I mentioned above, so long as the converts were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So you’re saying that there is not a consensus among the Orthodox about the validity of baptism by pouring water?

 

[lax16]

Can someone please explain Orthodox baptism?

Do Orthodox baptise infants?

Are the baptized confirmed at the same time?

What about original sin - is it the same as Catholicism?

thanks!

 

[RyanBlack]

Can someone please explain Orthodox baptism?

Do Orthodox baptise infants?

Are the baptized confirmed at the same time?

What about original sin - is it the same as Catholicism?

thanks!

Yes, the Orthodox baptize infants. They also chrismate (confirm) them, and immediately admit them to communion. Orthodox views concerning original sin are a bit different from the Roman Catholic understanding, although I think I would best leave that explanation to other posters who are more knowledgeable on that particular topic.

 

[WesleyF]

So why is there no consensus among the Orthodox as to whether baptisms by pouring are valid or not? I clearly see this as a big problem with Orthodoxy - that of no consensus.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

So why is there no consensus among the Orthodox as to whether baptisms by pouring are valid or not? I clearly see this as a big problem with Orthodoxy - that of no consensus.

Does their need to be a consensus? It doesn’t seem like an important enough issue to merit being proclaimed dogmatically, don’t you think?

 

[Zhenia]

The Orthodox Churches baptize by immersion, and they baptize infants, adults (converts), etc

They do not believe in original sin as RCs do.

ROCOR, one of the most conservative Orthodox jurisdictions, does not recognize RC baptism by pouring/sprinkling, and will baptize by immersion any RC who wishes to join their jurisdiction.

All the others do recognize RC baptism by pouring, and will only chrismate. However, since all these Orthodox jurisdictions are in communion with one another, if someone were to join, say, an OCA Orthodox church as a baptized RC and receive only chrismation, and then choose to switch to ROCOR, I do not think ROCOR in such a case would baptize.

 

[Hesychios]

So why is there no consensus among the Orthodox as to whether baptisms by pouring are valid or not? I clearly see this as a big problem with Orthodoxy - that of no consensus.

In extreme or unusual circumstances pouring would be acceptable, it is not the norm.

Still, a lot of the problems Orthodox have with Roman Catholic baptism go well beyond the method used. After all, the method is just mechanics. The fact that Roman Catholics use a method reserved for extreme cases as the norm is just a little symptom of much greater problems the Roman Catholics have.

Frankly, Orthodox do not care what Roman Catholics do (and lose no sleep over it) any more than they care what Hindu’s will do, because Roman Catholics are not Orthodox and Roman Catholic baptism does not bring a person into the Orthodox church. Even if the Roman Catholic priest used full triple immersion he could not bring a person into Holy Orthodoxy.

Whatever a Roman Catholic priest or bishop does, just like a Lutheran and just like an Anglican and just like a Presbyterian he does it outside of Holy Orthodoxy.

If an Orthodox bishop accepts a neophyte from another tradition he could justifiably rebaptize, but often it is not required out of economy. What Catholics and Protestants think about that no one really cares.

 

[Zhenia]

In extreme or unusual circumstances pouring would be acceptable, it is not the norm.

Still, a lot of the problems Orthodox have with Roman Catholic baptism go well beyond the method used. After all, the method is just mechanics. The fact that Roman Catholics use a method reserved for extreme cases as the norm is just a little symptom of much greater problems the Roman Catholics have.

Frankly, Orthodox do not care what Roman Catholics do (and lose no sleep over it) any more than they care what Hindu’s will do, because Roman Catholics are not Orthodox and Roman Catholic baptism does not bring a person into the Orthodox church. Even if the Roman Catholic priest used full triple immersion he could not bring a person into Holy Orthodoxy.

Whatever a Roman Catholic priest or bishop does, just like a Lutheran and just like an Anglican and just like a Presbyterian he does it outside of Holy Orthodoxy.

If an Orthodox bishop accepts a neophyte from another tradition he could justifiably rebaptize, but often it is not required out of economy. What Catholics and Protestants think about that no one really cares.

But do you not admit that Roman Catholics are sacramental Christians, and as such, are the closest to Orthodox in belief and tradition, certainly as compared to Protestants? I say this as a baptized Roman Catholic who is entering the Holy Orthodox Church, but has no hard feelings…in fact I would like to see unity between the two churches who were once united, and have so very much in common (with some exceptions of course!) and should not still be divided like this.

 

[dvdjs]

Frankly, Orthodox do not care what Roman Catholics do (and lose no sleep over it) any more than they care what Hindu’s will do …

I suppose that some Orthodox might feel that way, but really the statement is just absurd. Let’s compare that ink spilled by Orthodox in discussing what Catholics do versus what Hindus do. That comparison will make it clear that Orthodox care mush, much more about what Catholics vs Hindus do.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Zhenia,

… do you not admit that Roman Catholics are sacramental Christians, and as such, are the closest to Orthodox in belief and tradition, certainly as compared to Protestants?

The closest to Orthodox are the Miaphysite Christians (Copts, Jacobites, Armenian Apostolic), beyond any doubt in my mind.

As for Roman Catholicism being closer to Orthodoxy than Protestantism is, perhaps so, but only a matter of degree. In kind they are more similar to each other in very basic ways, even when they vehemently disagree with one another at least they can understand one another’s arguments. Not so with Holy Orthodoxy, Roman Catholics have to step outside of the box before they can grasp some aspects of the Orthodox faith. So in that sense they are closer to their Protestant children than their Orthodox cousins.

So from my perspective the Roman Catholic church is like one tree a full mile from another tree standing for Holy Orthodoxy. The Protestants can be represented by a cluster of trees a mile and a half away from the Orthodox tree in the same direction, but only about half a mile on the other side of the Roman Catholic tree … some a little closer, some a little further, scattered about. Those Protestant trees started out as seedlings of the Roman Catholic tree, but the winds of change blew them all out in the same direction.

I say this as a baptized Roman Catholic who is entering the Holy Orthodox Church, but has no hard feelings…in fact I would like to see unity between the two churches who were once united, and have so very much in common (with some exceptions of course!) and should not still be divided like this.

I too was baptized as a Roman Catholic.

I raised three children in the church and buried both my parents in the church. All of my grandchildren are Roman Catholics as are most of my friends and relatives.

I like them.

Still, some Roman Catholics are confused by an Orthodox bishop or synod’s ability to actually act on it’s own authority, to actually make a decision on a case by case basis for itself without constraint is often seen as “… a big problem with Orthodoxy …”.

It’s not a big problem, it is a great strength. It is an Apostolic church functioning in the way it has always functioned.

 

[WesleyF]

Still, some Roman Catholics are confused by an Orthodox bishop or synod’s ability to actually act on it’s own authority, to actually make a decision on a case by case basis for itself without constraint is often seen as “… a big problem with Orthodoxy …”.

It’s not a big problem, it is a great strength. It is an Apostolic church functioning in the way it has always functioned.

What is the case by case basis for baptism by pouring? This is not a matter of discipline where each church can act on its own authority and act on a case by case basis.** It is a matter of doctrine. ** Either baptism by pouring is valid or it is not valid. No case by case basis can be made here.

Are you saying then that each particular orthodox church can decide for itself whether baptism by pouring is valid or not?

 

[WesleyF]

Does their need to be a consensus? It doesn’t seem like an important enough issue to merit being proclaimed dogmatically, don’t you think?

It is definitely an important issue. After all, the Orthodox, like Catholics, believe that baptism is the means through which a person is born again. And being born again is essential for salvation. If a person is not validly baptized, then he is not born again and his salvation is in jeopardy. So this is definitely an important issue.

ROCOR, one of the most conservative Orthodox jurisdictions, does not recognize RC baptism by pouring/sprinkling, and will baptize by immersion any RC who wishes to join their jurisdiction.

All the others do recognize RC baptism by pouring, and will only chrismate.

Yes, this is what I am referring to. Why this difference? Either baptism by pouring is valid or it is not valid. So either the ROCOR have maintained the true apostolic traditions, or they are in error because they rebaptize. But one of the strong claims made by the Orthodox is that they are in line with tradition. Then why this difference?

And then, if I may add, which Orthodox church has maintained the true apostolic traditions and how do we decide that?

 

[Bluegoat]

I think Wesley that there is some confusion here because of the way you are asking the question, and because some posters are answering two different questions. Maybe I can try to provide some clarity and some Orthodox poster can affirm it or correct it:

1. In the Orthodox Church, normally one is baptized by immersion. But in some cases they may be baptized by another method for good reason and it is accepted. For example I know of someone whose son, not a child, was not immersed because he was autistic and would have been too upset. So, in your terms, yes, they accept it as valid.

2)But usually the Orthodox do not use the term valid with regards to Sacraments and they tend not to think in those terms - it is not about doing the minimum necessary, but rather the maximum possible. To see what is done in unusual situations they look to what has been done before, but don’t set it out like a manual. So when one asks about validity, one tends to get rather imprecise answers because it is a kind of translation of the Orthodox way of thinking into a Latin way of speaking.

1. Many Christians are not re-baptized, whether they were immersed or not, but this is a kind of dispensation. The priest could insist, or he can dispense as a matter of economy, and both are accepted and seen within Tradition. But this isn’t really to do with immersion, it is related to the fact the Sacrament was done outside the Orthodox Church, and so its status is always going to be questionable. Because it is done outside the Church, it might have been valid, or effectual might be a better word, but it is impossible to be sure. (Heck, even a non-baptized person might have been given that Grace by God - no one controls the Holy Spirit). If it was not, they are confident that the Holy Spirit will make up the lack at chrismation.

You might say the fact that the Catholic Church does not normally immerse is a sign of them being outside of the Orthodox Church, and that is the fact that brings the sacrament into question.

In some ways you might compare this to what the Latin Church teaches about the marriage of those who are newly baptized. The unbaptized are thought to have valid, but not sacramental marriages. But if they become baptized, they do not have to remarry in the Church - it is assumed that the Holy Spirit provides what is lacking and makes the marriage sacramental at the time of the baptism. This is similar to how Orthodoxy understands what happens in such a case.

So, I think the short answer is that no, lack of immersion itself does not mean the sacrament is invalid, as that is accepted within the Orthodox Church if required.

 

[Montalo]

it doesnt matter if the catholic pour, immerse, or any other way the feel like baptizing. The fact of the matter is that catholics lack the authority to baptize, and as such it doesnt matter if they follow the rite by doing the red and saying the black, it is still not baptism, because only a person inside the Church can baptize, and the catholic church is outside of the Church.

I was “baptized” as an infant in the roman church, and i will not be rebaptized when I enter Holy Orthodoxy, rather be truly baptized for the first time.

(paraphrased and put in my own words from what my priest(ROCOR) told me)

 

[Hesychios]

What is the case by case basis for baptism by pouring? This is not a matter of discipline where each church can act on its own authority and act on a case by case basis.** It is a matter of doctrine. ** Either baptism by pouring is valid or it is not valid. No case by case basis can be made here.

‘Validity’ is a peculiarly Roman Catholic preoccupation. A Roman Catholic baptism will not make you Orthodox, you can’t just waltz in and say you want to be Orthodox.

If you want to be Orthodox, you have to ask permission, and if you are accepted you will have to agree with the conditions the bishop places on you.

You have nothing to say about it, the bishop decides, not some office of clerks in a foreign city, a real bishop with the authority to do this. But if you want to be Orthodox, you will do what he expects with gladness.

If you don’t really want to be Orthodox your opinion and a few bucks will get you a caffè latte.

Are you saying then that each particular orthodox church can decide for itself whether baptism by pouring is valid or not?

No. I am saying that each Orthodox bishop can decide whether they want you as a member. They will always assume your baptism was inadequate in some way because you were baptized by what most Orthodox will consider heretics.

The operating principle is to err on the side of caution.

Everyone will know your baptism did not make you Orthodox (and is therefore basically irrelevant as far as getting into the church and receiving more sacraments) and each synod of bishops decides how to proceed in accepting neophytes.

I was not baptized in my own reception, but if my bishop had expected it I would have gladly done so. In a way I am sorry he didn’t.

This happens to be on the agenda of things the Orthodox in north America want to standardize in the future. For some dioceses or synods the rules of reception will probably become more stringent than before, and for other dioceses the rules will probably become more relaxed. I am of the opinion that within five years (give or take … ) there will be some kind of standard in place for all the Orthodox by mutual agreement.

 

[WesleyF]

‘Validity’ is a peculiarly Roman Catholic preoccupation. A Roman Catholic baptism will not make you Orthodox, you can’t just waltz in and say you want to be Orthodox.

But does it make a person a Christian according to Orthodox teaching? Does it save? When Roman Catholics talk about validity it is obviously the salvific aspect that is being referred to. Also, does a Roman Catholic immersion baptism make one “Orthodox” or not? If it doesn’t, then what it is about baptism that makes one “Orthodox” and what do you mean by “Orthodox”?

So I still have this question - why do some Orthodox churches require rebaptisms to be performed for Roman Catholic converts and some don’t? It seems to me as an obvious difference in doctrinal stance.