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

[WesleyF]

Discipline, not doctrine.

I am not quite convinced this is simply a matter of discipline; because the church speaks about what constitutes baptism and what does not. That is surely a doctrinal issue. This church claims that there exists no baptism apart from confirmation and if someone is giving confirmation separately, then he is an “innovator”. If it was merely a matter of discipline, I don’t see why this church should condemn the other Orthodox churches that receive converts only through chrismation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am not quite convinced this is simply a matter of discipline; because the church speaks about what constitutes baptism and what does not. That is surely a doctrinal issue. This church claims that there exists no baptism apart from confirmation and if someone is giving confirmation separately, then he is an “innovator”. If it was merely a matter of discipline, I don’t see why this church should condemn the other Orthodox churches that receive converts only through chrismation.

There was also unsureness as to whether or not different groups of heretics should be rebaptized before Nicaea (and after Nicaea), with each bishop doing things in the way he thought was best. An official policy for how Catholics can be received into Orthodoxy will be made when it is necessary.

 

[WesleyF]

There was also unsureness as to whether or not different groups of heretics should be rebaptized before Nicaea (and after Nicaea), with each bishop doing things in the way he thought was best.

Hey, I would like to know more about this. Do you have any links?

 

[WesleyF]

Nobody knows?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hey, I would like to know more about this. Do you have any links?

Canon 19 of Nicaea states: Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the catholic church, it is determined that they must be rebaptised unconditionally. Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptised and ordained by the bishop of the catholic church. But if on inquiry they are shown to be unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed. Similarly with regard to deaconesses and all in general whose names have been included in the roll, the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity. (taken from papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm)

I believe the topic of whether heretics should be rebaptised or not was also on the agenda (i.e., Canon 19 is not some frivolous canon, but one made to settle a specific disagreement). I have a book lying somewhere around my apartment which I could probably refer to (as it goes quite in depth), if I can find it.

 

[WesleyF]

Canon 19 of Nicaea states: Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the catholic church, it is determined that they must be rebaptised unconditionally. Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptised and ordained by the bishop of the catholic church. But if on inquiry they are shown to be unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed. Similarly with regard to deaconesses and all in general whose names have been included in the roll, the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity. (taken from papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum01.htm)

I believe the topic of whether heretics should be rebaptised or not was also on the agenda (i.e., Canon 19 is not some frivolous canon, but one made to settle a specific disagreement). I have a book lying somewhere around my apartment which I could probably refer to (as it goes quite in depth), if I can find it.

Ok. This quote talks about rebaptizing the Paulinists, but is there evidence that there was “unsureness” about that? Also, the issue with the current Orthodox churches doesn’t seem to be that of unsureness but rather they are certain that they are right.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok. This quote talks about rebaptizing the Paulinists, but is there evidence that there was “unsureness” about that? Also, the issue with the current Orthodox churches doesn’t seem to be that of unsureness but rather they are certain that they are right.

That’s not the case at all. Some synods do not even have an official policy (this is true of the OCA, where it’s the bishop’s decision). There is no official position, hence to say that there is any “sureness” is untenable. It will probably take a pan-Orthodox council to establish what the standard procedure for receiving Catholics into the Church is (if this is even deemed to be a big enough concern), much like how the standard procedure for accepting Paulinists into the Church was established at Nicaea.

 

[mdstanzel]

Wesley, I believe you’re asking a question that Orthodoxy will not answer. They speak in terms of Mystery and feel more than comfortable to leave it at that.

 

[Harpazo]

Nobody knows?

I won’t speak for my other Orthodox brethren on here, but I feel like this forum can be hyper-critical and extremely hostile to Orthodoxy on a fairly regular basis. I don’t necessarily have the will power or desire to attempt to provide an answer to people who are just waiting to turn around and tell me I’m wrong.

I’m not saying you do this or are doing so on this thread, but it has happened often enough on here to leave a sour taste in my mouth to the point that I don’t like to post here or even log in here.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mdstanzel]

Andrew,

I resisted the move for CAF to remove the thread for Orthodox Christians. But I’ve also seen many Orthodox show serious lack of respect for Catholics in all fairness. Even a couple of Orthodox priest/monks were slamming our devotion to the Sacred Heart. They made vile slanders like, the “sacred liver” and stuff like that. I was offended and was leaning towards Orthodoxy during that time. So this is a 2 way street. Latin Rite Catholics don’t understand that Easter Catholics subscribe to the same theology as Orthodox Christians, with very little exception [another discussion for another thread].

This is a simple question and could be easily answered. Believe me when I say this, if anyone is disrespectful to an Orthodox Christian here, I’ll be the first to report it.

 

[WesleyF]

Wesley, I believe you’re asking a question that Orthodoxy will not answer. They speak in terms of Mystery and feel more than comfortable to leave it at that.

Well then they should tell me it’s a mystery and that they don’t know the exact answer to my question.

 

[mdstanzel]

Well then they should tell me it’s a mystery and that they don’t know the exact answer to my question.

It seems to me that you are trying to get blood out of a turnip. I’ll bet that nobody will address this in the way you’ve addressed them. It may appear that you are acting suspicious and that would be enough to avoid stepping in some sort of trap in their mind.

 

[WesleyF]

It seems to me that you are trying to get blood out of a turnip. I’ll bet that nobody will address this in the way you’ve addressed them. It may appear that you are acting suspicious and that would be enough to avoid stepping in some sort of trap in their mind.

Well, I wasn’t being suspicious. I really thought they might have an answer on this. But if it’s a mystery, then, well; that ends the conversation.

 

[Cecilianus]

The whole question was posed along Latin lines, not Orthodox lines. The Orthodox Church teaches that Catholic sacraments are “without grace”. There is no concept of an occult “indelible mark on the soul” within Orthodoxy; the concept is frankly quite meaningless actually, if you think about it for a minute. If someone is without grace, they should be rebaptized. If not, then the Church supplies the grace. It’s a disciplinary matter, not a doctrinal one. You’ll see Catholic priests received into Orthodoxy without re-ordination, because the Church supplies. You’ll see Catholic laymen baptized upon being received into Orthodoxy, because there is no grace outside the Church. Not saying I agree with this - I am still in communion with Rome, because I do think there is some grace within the Roman Church - but that’s what Orthodox priests will teach.

I was at a baptism a few weeks ago and the baby’s head was fully immersed. The baby was held horizontally, however, so his nose may have been above water.

 

[louis91766]

The Orthodox Church teaches that Catholic sacraments are “without grace”.

Since the baptism and the ordination of the Roman Pope were without grace according to the E. Orthodox Church, would that mean that he is only a layperson and not an ordained priest or bishop in their view?

 

[Cecilianus]

Since the baptism and the ordination of the Roman Pope were without grace according to the E. Orthodox Church, would that mean that he is only a layperson and not an ordained priest or bishop in their view?

That’s a Latin distinction. You can’t put Orthodox theology in Latin terms.

 

[mdstanzel]

Well, I wasn’t being suspicious. I really thought they might have an answer on this. But if it’s a mystery, then, well; that ends the conversation.

The sacraments are Sacred Mysteries. The Catholic Church, particularly the Latin side discussed many doctrinal beliefs in ways the eastern church does not. They pretty much leave it as it is, without engaging in “overly cognitive” investigations. That’s what makes the Orthodox Church so appealing to me, particularly when I was converting from fundamentalist evangelical Christianity to the fullness of the faith. This is the only reason I know what I’ve expressed. I seriously doubt any Orthodox will humor you with an opinion because it may be considered wrong to do so. I’m not completely sure on this last statement, but I strongly suspect they won’t talk anyway. I’ll be watching over time to see if they do though.

 

[Frank_J]

I was told Russian Priest that Roman Catholic baptisms are defective and are missing sum element that is need. This was told to me when I became Russian Orthodox Christian so I had myself baptised in my Church.

 

[WesleyF]

The sacraments are Sacred Mysteries. The Catholic Church, particularly the Latin side discussed many doctrinal beliefs in ways the eastern church does not. They pretty much leave it as it is, without engaging in “overly cognitive” investigations.

I don’t buy that even for a moment. Don’t they agree with the explanations and definitions given by the Council of Nicea on the mystery of the Trinity? Of course they do. Perhaps they should drop these explanations then if they want to be consistent.

 

[WesleyF]

I was told Russian Priest that Roman Catholic baptisms are defective and are missing sum element that is need. This was told to me when I became Russian Orthodox Christian so I had myself baptised in my Church.

That means the Catholic baptism wasn’t a valid one. There’s only one baptism (Eph 4:5). The fact that you were rebaptized is an implicit statement that you weren’t born again, because baptism is the means through which a person is born again. Guess what? Pope Benedict XVI isn’t born again either!

I personally agree with those who receive previously baptized converts by chrismation rather than rebaptizing them.