For Eastern Orthodox Christians

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. bless,

None of those canons or proclamations teach that the baptisms of those outside of the Church are salvific, which was my original point of contention (and frankly I would also argue that they never teach that those outside of the Church perform the same baptism that the Church does). Not even St. Augustine, who recognized validity of the sacraments performed by those outside of the Church believed that their sacraments were salvific (because they could not, in his understanding, confer sanctifying grace), and indeed, the Eastern Fathers accordingly referred to baptisms performed outside of the Church as pollutions, and St. Basil the Great rejects the baptisms of heretics outright for the reason that they are completely cut off from the Church, with the exception of cases where another rule has been passed down for the sake of economy (this can clearly seen in canons 1, 20, and 47 of Basil, which were approved by the Council of Trullo). It would be no exaggeration, I think, to say that the Catholic doctrine of the Fathers is that baptisms performed by those outside of the Church are in some sense defective (be it lacking the grace of the Holy Spirit, in the thought of Ss. Firmilian, Cyprian, and Basil, or lacking sanctifying grace in the thought of St. Augustine), but that they have some some sacramental characteristic to them (when performed with proper form), which is why we can receive by economy those baptized outside of the Church.

I agree that Baptisms administered outside of the Church are defective. However, that does not mean that they are null and void. At the very least the Faith professed by the Baptism is salvic. St. Paul wrote, “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. “ One has to be very careful when attempting to interpret the canons. One must first study the way that the Church has applied the canon historically. One must also consider the original intent of the council or Father who wrote the canon. In the case of canon 1 of St. Basil, if you read his works, you will find that St. Basil has a very narrowly defined definition who heresy. He defines an heretic as someone who believes in a different God. If you look at the list of groups defined in the canon, you will find that most of them are various forms of Gnosticism, which did not believe in the Christian God. In the case of Roman Catholics the prayer that has historically been used when a Roman Catholic is received by Chrismation is the prayer used to reconcile someone who has left the Church but has returned, not the prayer used in the Baptism service to complete a Baptism as is the case with Protestants. The Russian Orthodox Church has received Roman Catholics by profession of faith for centuries. Most contemporary Orthodox theologians argue that even economy cannot make something valid that is null and void. The theology is that Baptism outside the Church is lacking. We do not define precisely what is lacking, but leave that to God. Whatever is lacking is perfected by Chrismation.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

I agree that Baptisms administered outside of the Church are defective. However, that does not mean that they are null and void. At the very least the Faith professed by the Baptism is salvic. St. Paul wrote, “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. “

Fr. Bless,

I would agree. If such a person who is baptized outside of the Church is saved, it is his faith which saved him, and not his baptism in se. Whereas for an Orthodox Christian who is saved, his baptism in itself can be said to have conferred upon him salvation, for being performed by the Church it is accounted as an instrument of the Spirit’s indwelling, something which the Fathers teach that baptisms performed outside of the Church are not.

One has to be very careful when attempting to interpret the canons. One must first study the way that the Church has applied the canon historically. One must also consider the original intent of the council or Father who wrote the canon. In the case of canon 1 of St. Basil, if you read his works, you will find that St. Basil has a very narrowly defined definition who heresy. He defines an heretic as someone who believes in a different God. If you look at the list of groups defined in the canon, you will find that most of them are various forms of Gnosticism, which did not believe in the Christian God.

Perhaps, except that we find with St. Basil the case of the Cathari, whose baptisms, though they were only schismatics, were rejected by the ancient authorities (Cyprian and Firmilian). St. Basil, accordingly, admits their baptisms not on the principle that they believe in the same God, but rather on the principle that a canon has been passed down, for the sake of the management of the majority, that their baptism should be accepted.

In the case of Roman Catholics the prayer that has historically been used when a Roman Catholic is received by Chrismation is the prayer used to reconcile someone who has left the Church but has returned, not the prayer used in the Baptism service to complete a Baptism as is the case with Protestants. The Russian Orthodox Church has received Roman Catholics by profession of faith for centuries. Most contemporary Orthodox theologians argue that even economy cannot make something valid that is null and void.

This is true. But the Greek canonists of the 17th century too understood that what is invalid cannot be made valid, which is why baptisms performed with improper form (i.e., one immersion) absolutely can never accepted by oikonomia. These canonists, as far as I know, understood that preserving proper form was enough to make a baptism “valid” in this sense, but they did not believe that such baptisms being valid for reception by oikonomia therefore made Orthodoxy beholden not to baptize such persons who had received inefficacious baptisms outside of the Church. This I realize seems to be a point of contention between modern scholars on the matter (like the late Patriarch Sergei), and earlier canonists (like St. Nikodemos, and Constantinos Oikonomou), but then I find the explanations of St. Nikodemos, and Constantinos Oikonomou (dissenting also somewhat from the explanation of Balsamon) to be more convincing, because they show that Trullo was not inconsistent to promulgate the canons of St. Cyprian (and command that nobody may disregard them), while promulgating its own canon accepting the baptisms of the Novatians, whose baptisms St. Cyprian rejected.

The theology is that Baptism outside the Church is lacking. We do not define precisely what is lacking, but leave that to God. Whatever is lacking is perfected by Chrismation.

I would agree, with the exception that the fathers seem unanimously to agree that baptisms performed outside of the Church lack salvific efficacy.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The only time when the Eastern Orthodox Church has dealt with this issue officially is when receiving converts who were Baptized outside of the Church. When dealing with such issues as the reception of converts, we must be guided by the historical practice of the Orthodox Church, not human logic or what we think the Church should do. Historically the Church has always allowed for the reception of baptized converts through economy by Chrismation. Since economy cannot make something valid which is invalid, there must be some degree of validity to Baptism administered outside of the Orthodox Church. I am aware that a great deal of argument has been made recently by those who teach that because Baptism administered outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church is invalid, all converts must be received by Baptism. However, the historical practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church does not support these arguments and shows that we recognize non-Orthodox Baptisms as having some degree of validity. The Council of Constantinople of 1485 ruled that Roman Catholics be received by Chrismation, thereby endorsing the position of St. Mark of Ephesus. The Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 ruled that baptized Protestants would also be received by Christmation. The Confession of Dositheus ratified by the Council, wrote, “For heretics who renounce their heresy and join the Catholic Church are received by the Church; although they received their valid Baptism with weakness of faith. Wherefore, when they afterwards become possessed of the perfect faith, they are not again baptized.” crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
Notice that he uses the word “valid.”
The decree of 1755 Cyril V requiring that all converts enter the Orthodox Church through Baptism, that is being used to support the argument that all converts must be Baptized, only applied to the Patriarchate of Constantinople but was not accepted by the rest of the Church. The Holy Synod of Antioch rejected it as an innovation. Russia ignored it. Even Constantinople does not follow the decree of 1755 today. Therefore the historical practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church does not support the argument that the Church considers non-Orthodox Baptisms totally lacking in validity.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

The only time when the Eastern Orthodox Church has dealt with this issue officially is when receiving converts who were Baptized outside of the Church. When dealing with such issues as the reception of converts, we must be guided by the historical practice of the Orthodox Church, not human logic or what we think the Church should do. Historically the Church has always allowed for the reception of baptized converts through economy by Chrismation. Since economy cannot make something valid which is invalid, there must be some degree of validity to Baptism administered outside of the Orthodox Church. I am aware that a great deal of argument has been made recently by those who teach that because Baptism administered outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church is invalid, all converts must be received by Baptism. However, the historical practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church does not support these arguments and shows that we recognize non-Orthodox Baptisms as having some degree of validity. The Council of Constantinople of 1485 ruled that Roman Catholics be received by Chrismation, thereby endorsing the position of St. Mark of Ephesus. The Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 ruled that baptized Protestants would also be received by Christmation. The Confession of Dositheus ratified by the Council, wrote, “For heretics who renounce their heresy and join the Catholic Church are received by the Church; although they received their valid Baptism with weakness of faith. Wherefore, when they afterwards become possessed of the perfect faith, they are not again baptized.” crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
Notice that he uses the word “valid.”
The decree of 1755 Cyril V requiring that all converts enter the Orthodox Church through Baptism, that is being used to support the argument that all converts must be Baptized, only applied to the Patriarchate of Constantinople but was not accepted by the rest of the Church. The Holy Synod of Antioch rejected it as an innovation. Russia ignored it. Even Constantinople does not follow the decree of 1755 today. Therefore the historical practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church does not support the argument that the Church considers non-Orthodox Baptisms totally lacking in validity.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Fr. John, I have not argued that there is not something in the baptisms of the heterodox which can be perfected upon their entrance into Orthodoxy (everybody, including the Greeks who do baptize converts following the 1755 Horos of the great Church would admit this), only that the baptisms of the heterodox are lacking, and according to the fathers, not of themselves salvific (even St. Augustine taught this), for they lack the perfection which the Church alone can give. This much should be uncontroversial. What exactly constitutes ‘validity,’ and how those heterodox who have preserved some validity in their sacraments relate to the Orthodox Church is an altogether different matter.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John, I have not argued that there is not something in the baptisms of the heterodox which can be perfected upon their entrance into Orthodoxy (everybody, including the Greeks who do baptize converts following the 1755 Horos of the great Church would admit this), only that the baptisms of the heterodox are lacking, and according to the fathers, not of themselves salvific (even St. Augustine taught this), for they lack the perfection which the Church alone can give. This much should be uncontroversial. What exactly constitutes ‘validity,’ and how those heterodox who have preserved some validity in their sacraments relate to the Orthodox Church is an altogether different matter.

The Greek Archdiocese of North America does not rebaptize converts, but receives them by Chrismation. The Church of Greece may, but it is not under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, but is an autocephalous Church. The North American Orthodox Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue published an opinion several years ago as well as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other recognized Orthodox theologians argue that since economy cannot make something valid that is invalid, the Orthodox Church does recognize a the validity in Roman Catholic and other Baptisms done with water “in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Met. Kallistos and other recognized Orthodox theologians argue that the argument that economy can make something totally invalid is not the ancient teaching
of the Orthodox Church, but a development following the Oros of 1755 in order to explain why the Church has traditionally received converts through Chrismation and why in 1755 other Orthodox not under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch continued to receive baptized converts through Chrismation. I am not arguing that non-Orthodox Sacraments are not lacking in fullness, only that they have some degree of validity or we could not receive them through Chrismation.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Greek Archdiocese of North America does not rebaptize converts, but receives them by Chrismation. The Church of Greece may, but it is not under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, but is an autocephalous Church. The North American Orthodox Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue published an opinion several years ago as well as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other recognized Orthodox theologians argue that since economy cannot make something valid that is invalid, the Orthodox Church does recognize a the validity in Roman Catholic and other Baptisms done with water “in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Met. Kallistos and other recognized Orthodox theologians argue that the argument that economy can make something totally invalid is not the ancient teaching
of the Orthodox Church, but a development following the Oros of 1755 in order to explain why the Church has traditionally received converts through Chrismation and why in 1755 other Orthodox not under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch continued to receive baptized converts through Chrismation. I am not arguing that non-Orthodox Sacraments are not lacking in fullness, only that they have some degree of validity or we could not receive them through Chrismation.

Archpriest John W. Morris

But Father, nobody is arguing or ever has argued that one can make things which are invalid valid by oikonomia; that is a strawman. For baptisms to be valid for reception by oikonomia, they must follow the proper form, and outside of the proper form (for example, the baptism of Eunomians, and others who baptized in one immersion), no oikonomia can be exercised. But the Church itself is not beholden to respect all baptisms of the proper form, and in some cases, the having the proper form does not in itself seem sufficient (this is a criticism made by Metropolitan Sergei’s of St. Nikodemos’ theory on oikonomia). This principle (that we are not beholden to accept baptisms performed with proper form) is recognized both by the ancient authorities who refused to recognize the baptisms of heretics and schismatics, and also as recently as the last century by Metropolitan Sergei of Moscow, who in his writing on apostolic succession understood that the Church has the power both to accept the sacraments of the heterodox by not considering the heterodox to be completely foreign to her, or irreversibly to reject their sacraments all together by using the power of the sword to cut them off completely from the Church and the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Reuben_J]

Please do not judge all Orthodox by one ignorant priest. I always welcome visitors to our Church as do my people.
I once served a parish that had three Catholic parishes, one was the German parish, another was the Irish parish and the third was the Italian parish, so you have had the same problem that we have. The difference is that the Catholics have been here longer and are more Americanized. However, we also have parishes that are Americanized. My parish is and welcomes visitors. Most of the clergy in the Antiochian Archdiocese are converts to Orthodoxy. I have seen two Patriarchs of Antioch serve the Liturgy almost entirely in English, Elias IV, and Ignatius IV. I am sure that our new Patriarch John X speaks English since he had jurisdiction over England, where all but one of our over 20 parishes are made up entirely of converts from the Church of England. Antiochian Orthodoxy has grown so much in England, that just a few weeks ago the Holy Synod of Antioch turned the British Deanery into an Archdiocese and will be electing and consecrating a Metropolitan to send to London.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Thanks for the clartification. I thought I said that I hoped it was an isolated incident. Then it would boil down to that particular church only, or rather to that priest only. However our experience was one we wanted to forget especially at such an age. It was not pretty I tell you. We were chased out for what we were.

 

[frjohnmorris]

But Father, nobody is arguing or ever has argued that one can make things which are invalid valid by oikonomia; that is a strawman. For baptisms to be valid for reception by oikonomia, they must follow the proper form, and outside of the proper form (for example, the baptism of Eunomians, and others who baptized in one immersion), no oikonomia can be exercised. .

I am sorry to have to correct a fellow Orthodox on this format, but you have been misinformed concerning the practice of the Orthodox Church. The only requirement is that the convert was Baptized with water, “In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Triple immersion is not a requirement for the use of economy to receive a Baptized convert through Chrismation. The pan Orthodox councils of 1485 and 1672 made no such requirement although the West had Baptized by pouring for centuries before 1485. With the exception of ROCOR all American Orthodox jurisdictions receive converts Baptized with water with the proper Trinitarian formula through Chrismation. However, even the rules of ROCOR allow a Bishop to authorize the reception of a baptized convert by Chrismation as an act of economy. I know that ROCOR has received converts into its Western Rite through Chrismation. I do not want to sound arrogant, but I know a lot about this subject. I have done extensive study of this issue.There is a whole chapter in my book on Orthodox Fundamentalism on this subject. About 15 years ago, I served on the committee of the Antiochian Archdiocese that studied the matter and wrote the rules followed by our Archdiocese. During our clergy meeting in July, I was asked to update the rules. A project that I completed just a few weeks ago. After my recommendations received the approval of Metropolitan Philip, they were e mailed to every Priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I also serve as a consultant to the Pastoral Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America on Baptism and the reception of converts. I am also a consultant to the Committee on Ecumenical Affairs of the Bishop’s Assembly which also deals with this issue. Look at the Book of Needs published by St. Tikhon’s Press or the old Hapgood Service Book. They give the rules. Although triple immersion is certainly the norm, it is not an absolute requirement even in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Many Orthodox including the Russian Church Baptize adults by pouring water over their head as they hold it over the Baptismal font because our Baptismal fonts are designed to Baptize infants. I do immerse adults using a large tub. In the case of an extreme emergency a person who is dying can be Baptized without water if no water can be found.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am sorry to have to correct a fellow Orthodox on this format, but you have been misinformed concerning the practice of the Orthodox Church. The only requirement is that the convert was Baptized with water, “In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Triple immersion is not a requirement for the use of economy to receive a Baptized convert through Chrismation. The pan Orthodox councils of 1485 and 1672 made no such requirement although the West had Baptized by pouring for centuries before 1485. With the exception of ROCOR all American Orthodox jurisdictions receive converts Baptized with water with the proper Trinitarian formula through Chrismation. However, even the rules of ROCOR allow a Bishop to authorize the reception of a baptized convert by Chrismation as an act of economy. I know that ROCOR has received converts into its Western Rite through Chrismation. I do not want to sound arrogant, but I know a lot about this subject. I have done extensive study of this issue.There is a whole chapter in my book on Orthodox Fundamentalism on this subject. About 15 years ago, I served on the committee of the Antiochian Archdiocese that studied the matter and wrote the rules followed by our Archdiocese. During our clergy meeting in July, I was asked to update the rules. A project that I completed just a few weeks ago. After my recommendations received the approval of Metropolitan Philip, they were e mailed to every Priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I also serve as a consultant to the Pastoral Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America on Baptism and the reception of converts. I am also a consultant to the Committee on Ecumenical Affairs of the Bishop’s Assembly which also deals with this issue. Look at the Book of Needs published by St. Tikhon’s Press or the old Hapgood Service Book. They give the rules. Although triple immersion is certainly the norm, it is not an absolute requirement even in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Many Orthodox including the Russian Church Baptize adults by pouring water over their head as they hold it over the Baptismal font because our Baptismal fonts are designed to Baptize infants. I do immerse adults using a large tub. In the case of an extreme emergency a person who is dying can be Baptized without water if no water can be found.

Archpriest John Morris

Fr. John, I did not claim that triple immersion is absolutely required (as opposed to pouring which though frowned upon is accepted), but only that proper form (which I did not restrict entirely to triple immersion) is required for a baptism to be valid for reception by oikonomia, providing the example of the baptisms of Eunomians, which were rejected because they baptized only in one immersion, which most certainly is improper in form and thereby invalid.

My whole point was that nobody, not even those who receive converts with baptism has ever claimed that what is invalid can be made valid by oikonomia. Oikonomia can only be exercised when a baptism was performed with valid form, and this is part of what constitutes a valid sacrament, which is why we reject outright baptisms which were performed improperly (as with the Eunomians and their baptism of one immersion).

Your credentials are indeed impressive Father, and I give to you all the deference which is due from a man of my own humble stature, but I am perhaps somewhat bewildered if not a bit grieved because it seems that you are picking points of contention with me over ideas which I have not actually advocated, such as the idea that all baptisms outside of the Church are completely invalid (what I originally wrote is that, following St. Augustine and the Eastern Fathers, baptisms performed out of the Church are not in themselves salvific), the idea that what is invalid can be made valid by oikonomia (I do not know a single person who believes this proposition to be true), or the idea that triple immersion is absolutely necessary.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Your credentials are indeed impressive Father, and I give to you all the deference which is due from a man of my own humble stature, but I am perhaps somewhat bewildered if not a bit grieved because it seems that you are picking points of contention with me over ideas which I have not actually advocated, such as the idea that all baptisms outside of the Church are completely invalid (what I originally wrote is that, following St. Augustine and the Eastern Fathers, baptisms performed out of the Church are not in themselves salvific), the idea that what is invalid can be made valid by oikonomia (I do not know a single person who believes this proposition to be true), or the idea that triple immersion is absolutely necessary.

I apologize if I did not understand you. I do think that we should leave it up to God to decide what is salvic. I think that we should simply state that Sacraments administered outside of the Church are lacking in fullness and leave it at that.

Fr. John

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fr. John and Cavaradossi-

If someone is baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church, is that baptism valid?

If someone is baptized using water and the Trinitarian formula in the Methodist Church, is that baptism valid?

Finally, if someone is baptized in the Methodist Church as an infant and then conditionally baptized at the time of reception into the Catholic Church as an adult, is that baptism valid?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

If someone is* baptized* as an infant … using water and the Trinitarian formula … is that baptism valid?

The Word Baptism Means Immersion. If One Hadn’t Been Fully Immersed 3 Times In The Name Of The Father, Son & Holy Spirit, How Could Anyone Come To The Conclusion That That One Had Ever Been Baptized?

Certain Bishops Forbid Catholics Or Protestants From Being Baptized At Conversion To Orthodoxy Because Of Ecumenism, But The Monasteries Will Correct That Error So The Person Can Have A Baptism Into The Ancient Christian Faith.

One Has To Wonder What “Lack Of Fullness” Really Means In Terms Of The Mysteries. Baptist ChristiAns With A Single Immersion Baptism Is 1/3 Baptised And Catholics With Water Only Poured On The Head Is 1/8 BaptisEd? Lol! Can Someone Fix The Problem ByGiving The Missing 2/3 Or 7/8 Of The ParTial (Lack Of Fullness) Baptism? Look, There can’t Be Such A Thing As “Lack Of Fullness” In Baptism Or Other Mystery, either Someone WaS Baptised Or They weren’t.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Word Baptism Means Immersion. If One Hadn’t Been Fully Immersed 3 Times In The Name Of The Father, Son & Holy Spirit, How Could Anyone Come To The Conclusion That That One Had Ever Been Baptized?

Certain Bishops Forbid Catholics Or Protestants From Being Baptized At Conversion To Orthodoxy Because Of Ecumenism, But The Monasteries Will Correct That Error So The Person Can Have A Baptism Into The Ancient Christian Faith.

One Has To Wonder What “Lack Of Fullness” Really Means In Terms Of The Mysteries. Baptist ChristiAns With A Single Immersion Baptism Is 1/3 Baptised And Catholics With Water Only Poured On The Head Is 1/8 BaptisEd? Lol! Either Someone WaS Baptised Or They weren’t.

Did Jesus give real authority to the Church or not? If real, then doesn’t the Church have the authority to decide what is and is not real baptism? If so, then if the Church determines that immersion, pouring and sprinkling are all valid, then they are valid.

However, there is this from the first century:

The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

 

[ScottEH]

The Word Baptism Means Immersion. If One Hadn’t Been Fully Immersed 3 Times In The Name Of The Father, Son & Holy Spirit, How Could Anyone Come To The Conclusion That That One Had Ever Been Baptized?

Certain Bishops Forbid Catholics Or Protestants From Being Baptized At Conversion To Orthodoxy Because Of Ecumenism, But The Monasteries Will Correct That Error So The Person Can Have A Baptism Into The Ancient Christian Faith.

One Has To Wonder What “Lack Of Fullness” Really Means In Terms Of The Mysteries. Baptist ChristiAns With A Single Immersion Baptism Is 1/3 Baptised And Catholics With Water Only Poured On The Head Is 1/8 BaptisEd? Lol! Either Someone WaS Baptised Or They weren’t.

An Orthodox priest literally said a few posts ago that immersion is not required, even if it is preferred

Some EO seem to have a bizarre fixation on the monks of Mt. Athos as being practically infallible. Maybe I’m out of line, but I would think you would be better served to listen to your bishops and patriarchs as well. But then again, who am I to say?

 

[Nine_Two]

An Orthodox priest literally said a few posts ago that immersion is not required, even if it is preferred

Some EO seem to have a bizarre fixation on the monks of Mt. Athos as being practically infallible. Maybe I’m out of line, but I would think you would be better served to listen to your bishops and patriarchs as well. But then again, who am I to say?

You are quite right. The Athonites don’t lead the Church. They are influential, but nothing more. They certainly don’t override the words of Hierarchs.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

However, there is this from the first century:

The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Exactly, All The Fathers Are In Agreement With That “If You Have Neither” A very Rare Exception To The Rule - Perhaps If Someone Was stranded In The Dessert Somewhere With A Limited Amount Of well-water Available. To Make The Rare Exception The Rule Is Contary To The Teachings & Practices Of The Fathers.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

An Orthodox priest literally said a few posts ago that immersion is not required, even if it is preferred

Some EO seem to have a bizarre fixation on the monks of Mt. Athos as being practically infallible. Maybe I’m out of line, but I would think you would be better served to listen to your bishops and patriarchs as well. But then again, who am I to say?

Baptism Means Immersion.

On The Occassion Of Some Cccepting Baptism On Their Death Bed And it’s Impossible To Get That Person Into Water To BaptiZe (Immerse) Then Pouring Is An Acceptible Alternative To Baptism In That Rare Situation.

It’s ThE Orthodox Church (Canons & Fathers) That Are To Be Followed, Not Any one Fallible Person. In Our Current Times Many Of The Monastics Mothers and Fathers are Keeping The True Faith While Many, But Not All, Bishops aren’t. We Follow The Church.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

However, there is this from the first century:

The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Exactly, All The Fathers Are In Agreement With That “If You Have Neither” A very Rare Exception To The Rule - Perhaps If Someone Was stranded In The Dessert Somewhere With A Limited Amount Of well-water Available. To Make The Rare Exception The Rule Is Contary To The Teachings & Practices Of The Fathers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exactly, All The Fathers Are In Agreement With That “If You Have Neither” A very Rare Exception To The Rule - Perhaps If Someone Was stranded In The Dessert Somewhere With A Limited Amount Of well-water Available. To Make The Rare Exception The Rule Is Contary To The Teachings & Practices Of The Fathers.

So, pouring is not invalid even if it is not preferred (in the early church). Thank you.

Now, you skipped this part of my post:

Did Jesus give real authority to the Church or not? If real, then doesn’t the Church have the authority to decide what is and is not real baptism? If so, then if the Church determines that immersion, pouring and sprinkling are all valid, then they are valid.

Thoughts?

 

[ScottEH]

Baptism Means Immersion.

On The Occassion Of Some Cccepting Baptism On Their Death Bed And it’s Impossible To Get That Person Into Water To BaptiZe (Immerse) Then Pouring Is An Acceptible Alternative To Baptism In That Rare Situation.

It’s ThE Orthodox Church (Canons & Fathers) That Are To Be Followed, Not Any one Fallible Person. In Our Current Times Many Of The Monastics Mothers and Fathers are Keeping The True Faith While Many, But Not All, Bishops aren’t. We Follow The Church.

So despite what has been written on this thread by an Orthodox priest, baptism by immersion is the only way unless it isn’t physically possible.

So is someone who isn’t baptized by immersion, when tere are no extenuating circumstances that would allow for an exception to this rule, truly baptized? In lther words, if a non-Orthodox Christian is baptized by a method other than immersion, are they actually baptized according to your understanding?

About the monks: from an outside perspective, they seem awfully eager to accuse others of heresy. I have great respect for the men of Mt. Athos, but bishops are the ones meant to lead their flocks. Monastics are not of the episcopacy.