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

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WesleyF said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...
I don’t know the reason why ROCOR alone amongst the Orthodox jurisdictions will rebaptize Roman Catholics. I do know that until 2007 they were not in communion with the other Orthodox jurisdictions, so perhaps (I don’t know this for sure) they had to be allowed to continue holding that view as one of the terms for going back into communion?

One thing that non-Orthodox often fail to understand (and I also did not understand this for a long time) is that all Orthodox jurisdictions which are in communion with each other hold the same doctrines and beliefs. The only real difference is that many are ethnically-based and have different CUSTOMS peculiar to their ethnicities.

For example, Russian Orthodox churches always require women to cover their heads. Greeks, not really. Greeks tend to do a combination of sitting and standing during their services, whereas the Russians almost always stand for the entire service. These are cultural differences, not doctrinal ones.
 
WesleyF said:
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.
Click to expand...
its never “rebaptism” when one wasnt baptized in the first place.

it is the principle of economy. By receiving the Holy Mystery of Chrisimation(SP), it fills the empty baptism with grace at the same time.(i know someone can explain this is better terms than I, but i believe i have hit it in blunt words)
 
Sadly, you are getting a ton of misinformation here, WesleyF.

Check this out from an Orthodox library:
myriobiblos.gr/texts/documents/northamerican_1.htm
myriobiblos.gr/texts/documents/northamerican_2.htm
myriobiblos.gr/texts/documents/northamerican_3.htm
myriobiblos.gr/texts/documents/northamerican_4.htm
myriobiblos.gr/texts/documents/northamerican_5.htm

Closing quote:
We have already noted that the East Slavic Orthodox churches remain committed to the earlier understanding and practice of the Byzantine era [No “re”-baptism of Catholics], which does not imply the possibility of making valid what is invalid, or invalid what is valid. Even within Greek-speaking Orthodoxy, “sacramental economy” in the full Nicodemean sense does not command universal acceptance. As a result, within world Orthodoxy, the issue of “sacramental economy” remains the subject of intense debate, but the Nicodemean interpretation is still promoted in important theological and monastic circles. Although these voices in the Orthodox world are significant ones, we do not believe that they represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church on the subject of baptism
Click to expand...
You might think of the matter this way:
The Orthodox churches of Romania and Jerusalem recently broke communion. During the break if a Romanian wished to be formally registered into the church of Jerusalem, would they be re-baptized? Of course not! Now suppose that this break were to last for many years, even centuries, during which there were addition frictions and continuing estrangement. Perhaps at some point there would be some charges of sheep stealing or worse. At that point, a break of baptismal recognition might be used as a ecclesio-diplomatic weapon.

The document at the link paints a pretty clear picture that that is what had happened between the CC and OC. There was a breech of communion, but a continuing recognition of baptism. Re-baptism was centrally decreed by the EP for all of the Greeks in response to the Melkites opting for communion with Rome. (I am not sure how it happened that ROCOR went against the centralized decrees of the Russian Synod.) After this happened an innovative rationalization of the procedures was developed. Note again that this idea “…within world Orthodoxy, remains the subject of intense debate; … the Nicodemean interpretation is still promoted [but] we do not believe that [it] represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church on the subject of baptism.”

Finally, as to the idea that this is all in the hands of each given bishop - and presumably should be… This is fantasy about the working of the Orthodox church. Perhaps in pre-Nicean times this was the case; but that was a time of widespread and continuing heresy that was only eliminated with greater centralization. Each Orthodox church may be different in the way it Bishops are subject to other, central authorities, or the way it might deal with a rogue bishop, but the bishops are not free agents.
 
dvdjs said:
Finally, as to the idea that this is all in the hands of each given bishop - and presumably should be… This is fantasy about the working of the Orthodox church. Perhaps in pre-Nicean times this was the case; but that was a time of widespread and continuing heresy that was only eliminated with greater centralization. Each Orthodox church may be different in the way it Bishops are subject to other, central authorities, or the way it might deal with a rogue bishop, but the bishops are not free agents.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody propagating that “myth”. Bishops were always subject to synods and therefore were never “free agents”, nor do I think anybody would believe that.
 
WesleyF said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just a minute - the Catholic Church, as far as I am aware, doesn’t teach that baptism “saves” a person. That idea belongs only to particular Protestant groups.
 
Bluegoat said:
Just a minute - the Catholic Church, as far as I am aware, doesn’t teach that baptism “saves” a person. That idea belongs only to particular Protestant groups.
Click to expand...
Maybe the modern, post V2 church doesn’t teach that, but the historical RCC did (does) teach that you must be baptized to go to Heaven. This is why unbaptized babies were said to go to Limbo.
 
Zhenia said:
…This is why unbaptized babies were said to go to Limbo.
Click to expand...
Initially, following Augustine the western belief was that unbaptised babies were relegated to hell. This is the basis of the famous total depravity of mankind theory. (Protestants picked this up from their Roman Catholic forebears and teachers and the idea courses through all of the major western faith communities.)

Many centuries after Augustine, some Roman Catholic theologians were a bit dismayed by this damnation of infants and proposed that instead they would be simply deprived of the Beatific Vision, the results of which they interpreted to be a type of limbo. (The Beatific Vision is not an eastern Christian concept nor the total depravity, so neither the damnation nor the limbo is positively affirmed).

[This of course helps explain why Saint Mary needed a special exemption, early Christians did not think of her as depraved in any sense and as time went on they thought of her in ever more honorable and wondrous ways, meanwhile in the west later Christians were thinking of themselves and everyone around them in ever more despicable ways. The conflicting views had to be resolved and the remedy was to invent a special mode of origin for Saint Mary that no one else can have.]

But essentially once we take limbo out of that equation it’s back to hell for little babies, which is why the catechism of Pope John Paul II could only say “the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God” while the Augustinian theory of depravity still stands.
 
Zhenia said:
I do know that until 2007 they were not in communion with the other Orthodox jurisdictions
Click to expand...
I don’t want to divert the topic of this thread, but that statement is not entirely accurate. ROCOR ceased to commune with the Russian church, but not the rest of Orthodoxy. Concelebration between ROCOR and other jurisdictions did become increasingly rare (as did intercommunion), but it was never to the point of non-existence.
 
Hesychios, please answer the question I asked in post 20.

I am not in the least interested in diverting the discussion, but to those who asked, yes, the Catholic church does teach that baptism saves.
 
WesleyF said:
Hesychios, please answer the question I asked in post 20.
Click to expand...
" - 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."
Please reread post 19.

*"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.

… each synod of bishops decides how to proceed in accepting neophytes."*

Economy is at work here, not some doctrinal difference.
 
(I was away for a while, so I apologize for the delay in replying).

What about my first question -
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”?
Click to expand...
 
WesleyF said:
(I was away for a while, so I apologize for the delay in replying).

What about my first question -
Click to expand...
Your concept of baptism ‘saving’ must have something to do with assuming the baby is already damned, would that be right?

Baptism brings one into the church. One dies with Christ and rises with Him into a new life in Christ. This is not about washing spots out of your soul.

We don’t know anything about a baptism that brings people into the wrong church.

It should be noted that many sacraments (Holy Mysteries) have the power of forgiveness. Confession of course, and baptism and also communion. So baptism does remit sins if one has sins.

However if one is baptized into the Mormon church, or the Lutheran church, or the Methodist church or the Roman Catholic church that person is not baptized into the Orthodox church, so we don’t really know the efficacy of the sacrament such a one received.

We would like to think the act was a good thing, but we don’t know that. Our bishops might give it the benefit of the doubt and simply Chrismate or Commune the person, assuming that the Holy Spirit will make good any deficiencies. But they don’t have to.
 
Hesychios said:
Your concept of baptism ‘saving’ must have something to do with assuming the baby is already damned, would that be right?
Click to expand...
We are all born as “children of wrath” by nature (Eph 2:3). So in that sense, yes, a baby is born not in a state of friendship with God, but in a “damned” state in the sense that it doesn’t have God’s grace in it. So my question to you is, does a non-orthodox baptism save a person from this “damned” state?
Hesychios said:
Baptism brings one into the church. One dies with Christ and rises with Him into a new life in Christ. This is not about washing spots out of your soul.

We don’t know anything about a baptism that brings people into the wrong church.

However if one is baptized into the Mormon church, or the Lutheran church, or the Methodist church or the Roman Catholic church that person is not baptized into the Orthodox church, so we don’t really know the efficacy of the sacrament such a one received.
Click to expand...
From what you’re saying, I understand that only baptism in an orthodox church can make one a member of the Orthodox church. In that sense, a non-orthodox baptism isn’t valid at all unless you consider that people who were baptized in a non-Orthodox church were somehow incorporated into the orthodox church by their baptism. In that case a person must be baptized into the orthodox church by necessity and not by discretion as it is currently practiced.
Hesychios said:
We would like to think the act was a good thing, but we don’t know that. Our bishops might give it the benefit of the doubt and simply Chrismate or Commune the person, assuming that the Holy Spirit will make good any deficiencies. But they don’t have to.
Click to expand...
But this seems like a contradiction to me. From what I have understood, it seems that only an orthodox baptism can make one a member of the orthodox church. Does the orthodox church believe that Christmation or Communion can somehow incorporate one into the orthodox church if one had not been baptized as an orthodox christian?
 
WesleyF said:
We are all born as “children of wrath” by nature (Eph 2:3). So in that sense, yes, a baby is born not in a state of friendship with God, but in a “damned” state in the sense that it doesn’t have God’s grace in it. So my question to you is, does a non-orthodox baptism save a person from this “damned” state?
Click to expand...
We don’t have a theory that children are born in a damned state.

They are born into a fallen world.
WesleyF said:
But this seems like a contradiction to me. From what I have understood, it seems that only an orthodox baptism can make one a member of the orthodox church. Does the orthodox church believe that Christmation or Communion can somehow incorporate one into the orthodox church if one had not been baptized as an orthodox christian?
Click to expand...
Yes. If the person renounces heresy and the devil. There are other instruments of Grace which can make up for any potential deficiency.

Personally, if it was up to me (it’s not 🙂 ) I would prefer that all converts take the baptism. But the bishops (these things are decided together in synod, then they act in unison) can choose to use another method.

This is economy.
 
Zhenia said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hey Zhenia, I’m just curious to know how infants are baptized by immersion? This seems dangerous to me and I’m trying to picture how this can be done with 100% safety, even given that there may be a reflex to hold one’s breath when submerged, and this reflex may be present from birth??

There was an infant baptism yesterday at the Saturday afternoon mass. The little girl- I think she was about a year old- definitely did not even like having water poured on her head.
 
Faithdancer said:
Hey Zhenia, I’m just curious to know how infants are baptized by immersion? This seems dangerous to me and I’m trying to picture how this can be done with 100% safety, even given that there may be a reflex to hold one’s breath when submerged, and this reflex may be present from birth??

There was an infant baptism yesterday at the Saturday afternoon mass. The little girl- I think she was about a year old- definitely did not even like having water poured on her head.
Click to expand...
Roman Catholic Baptism …
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VWYKOVUktLI/Skd2NZVwkZI/AAAAAAAAAM0/kC8-Hqa68h4/s400/isabellabap1.jpg

Orthodox Baptism …

http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/p782nzh.jpg

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/700Georgianbaptism.jpg
 
So, the baby’s head isn’t submerged then? Judging from the photos, it doesn’t appear so. And it looks like that one baby is enjoying it!
At any rate, I’m sure both forms of baptism are valid.
In Zeffirelli’s “Jesus of Nazareth” John is depicted as baptizing people en masse, by cupping water in his had and pouring it from his hand onto their heads. He even baptized Jesus this way, in the film- no immersions. I think that Zeffirelli was a stickler for accuracy in his films, and I’m wondering where he got this detail from.

Pope Benedict XVI, on the other hand writes at length in vol. 1 of Jesus of Nazareth about Jesus being fully immersed in the River Jordan when he is baptized by John. I will see if I can find any reference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top