Oikonomia and repeating or neglecting to repeat baptism

[Zekariya]

I thought this this was an interesting post and no one responded to it. I’d like to see what the Eastern Catholics here think of this traditionally EO understanding of the Sacraments. In an old thread an Eastern Orthodox poster said:

So, when deciding on how to receive a heterodox Christian into the Church, it is entirely up to the bishop with his power to bind and loose to decide how it is to be done. Properly speaking there is no such thing as a “conditional” baptism or ordination. If a bishop decides to ordain someone being received into the Church, then that is their one and only ordination. If a bishop decides to apply economia, and to receive a heterodox priest by simple vesting, that is not a recognition that the previous “ordination” was grace filled, it is the bishop through his Apostolic authority saying that whatever was lacking in the heterodox rites are now filled and completed by the individual’s reception into the Church.

Having come from the EO Church, I particularly like this understanding of the Sacraments. What do you (or your sui iuris Church or bishops) think about the idea that what the Church authoritatively decides concerning your sacramental status is authoritative on the validity of your sacramental status? Is there anyplace in the Eastern Catholic Churches for the aforementioned theological understanding of the Sacraments?

Question 1
Suppose a man was baptized as an infant in an Episcopalian parish. He was received into the Catholic Church via Chrismation/Confirmation. However, unbeknownst to him, he was not baptized in a way acceptable by the standards of the Catholic Church. The Church’s (bind and loose) decision was to receive him by Chrismation/Confirmation. Did this decision fill what was lacking in his baptism?

Question 2
Suppose a man was validly baptized as an infant in an Episcopalian parish. He was received into the Eastern Orthodox Church via baptism. The Church’s (bind and loose) decision was to receive him by baptism. Which baptism is to be considered his real baptism?

FWIW, the 2nd Ecumenical Council said to not rebaptize the non-trinitarian Arians.

Thanks,
Zekariya

 

[John_Martin]

Peter faced a similar quandary - with Cornelius - He received the Holy Spirit in a fashion not familiar to Peter, he received it before being baptized and before the imposition of the hands and anointing. Yet when it happened, he did not then say Baptism was not necessary. Instead he asked how they could refuse to baptize Cornelius.
With the unbaptized Catholic, when it is discovered he is not baptized at a later date, a similar decision can be made to baptize the person, who undoubtedly would want to have that official inclusion into the Church.
It is the Church that is being “increased” by the baptism of a non-citizen of the Kingdom of God, therefore, as to the ecclesiological effect (rather than the spiritual), it is the Baptism where the person finds union to the Body of Christ that is effective (the Baptism where the Church now says “you are one with us”). Spiritually, it is actually like the Cornelius event - it is the Baptism where the Holy Spirit came in with his Graces, whereupon the Church makes its decisions about what it considers “good order” for the well-being of the whole Church and its relational understanding to this person seeking union.

John Martin

 

[Zekariya]

Peter faced a similar quandary - with Cornelius - He received the Holy Spirit in a fashion not familiar to Peter, he received it before being baptized and before the imposition of the hands and anointing. Yet when it happened, he did not then say Baptism was not necessary. Instead he asked how they could refuse to baptize Cornelius.
With the unbaptized Catholic, when it is discovered he is not baptized at a later date, a similar decision can be made to baptize the person, who undoubtedly would want to have that official inclusion into the Church.
It is the Church that is being “increased” by the baptism of a non-citizen of the Kingdom of God, therefore, as to the ecclesiological effect (rather than the spiritual), it is the Baptism where the person finds union to the Body of Christ that is effective (the Baptism where the Church now says “you are one with us”). Spiritually, it is actually like the Cornelius event - it is the Baptism where the Holy Spirit came in with his Graces, whereupon the Church makes its decisions about what it considers “good order” for the well-being of the whole Church and its relational understanding to this person seeking union.

John Martin

I am speaking of a hypothetical person who was never baptized according to the standard of the Catholic Church and he and the others do not know this fact. Therefore, he was never baptized again. Does the Church, out of her authority to bind and loose, fill with grace the graceless baptism?

 

[frjohnmorris]

The entrance Rite into the Church used by the Orthodox consists of Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation) and Communion. However, Chrismation has two purposes. One is the completion of Baptism as part of the Entrance Rite into the Church. This is the way it is used for Protestants. However, Chrismation can also be used to reconcile someone who has left the Church. Traditionally the prayer that is used with the Chrismation of Catholics is the prayer used to reconcile someone with the Church, not the prayer used to complete Baptism. Even when that specific prayer is not used the North American Roman Catholic Orthodox Ecumenical Dialogue has issued a statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes Roman Catholic Baptism and that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Baptism. Thus receiving a Roman Catholic into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation does not mean that we do not recognize either Roman Catholic Baptism or Confirmation. The prayer used with Protestants is the prayer used to complete Baptism since they have no Chrismation since they lack the Apostolic Succession necessary for Chrismation, because Chrismation completes whatever was lacking in a Protestant Baptism. Some Orthodox receive all converts through the whole Entrance Rite into the Church. However, most receive converts through Chrismation. The Russian Church has traditionally received Roman Catholics through a profession of Faith without Chrismation. It is the prerogative of the Bishop subject, of course to his Primate and the decision of the Holy Synod under which he serves, to decide how to receive a Convert. In North America most Orthodox receive Baptized converts through Chrismation. However, like the Catholics, we must Baptize someone who was not Baptized “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Thus we must verify that a Protestant was not Baptized “in the Name of Jesus” as Oneness Pentecostals do, or in so called inclusive language as some liberal Protestants do.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[John_Martin]

I am speaking of a hypothetical person who was never baptized according to the standard of the Catholic Church and he and the others do not know this fact. Therefore, he was never baptized again. Does the Church, out of her authority to bind and loose, fill with grace the graceless baptism?

In the Catholic Church, they ask for your baptismal certificate, which describes the baptism (it may state the formula), your name, date, sponsors, etc. Priests will investigate the practice of the denomination performing the baptism to discern the form used prior to receiving them into the Church. It is the Holy Spirit who fills with Grace what the Church accepts, even if the Church were humanly mistaken. In the hypothetical situation, there is no cause for scandal since no one is aware. The Holy Spirit, aware of our ignorance, however, can grant his fullness as he did with Cornelius, even though there is no “Peter” there to recognize he was not baptized.
I doubt, however, that the hypothetical situation would ever happen.

John Martin

 

[frjohnmorris]

QUOTE Suppose a man was validly baptized as an infant in an Episcopalian parish. He was received into the Eastern Orthodox Church via baptism. The Church’s (bind and loose) decision was to receive him by baptism. Which baptism is to be considered his real baptism? END QUOTE

Baptism administered in an Episcopalian or other Protestant Church is considered lacking in fullness since it was administered outside of the Church. Normally most Orthodox complete the fullness of Protestant Baptism through Chrismation (Confirmation) since Chrismation completes whatever was lacking in the Protestant Baptism.
However, the Episcopalians and other liberal Protestant groups have created a problem, by the usage of so called inclusive language “In the Name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” Therefore, if we cannot verify that the Baptism was administered “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit,” we have no choice but to receive an Episcopalian or other person coming from a Protestant denomination that allows or tolerates inclusive language for Baptism by the full service of Baptism. I believe that the Catholic Church has taken the same position on this matter.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

Thank you Fr John and John for your replies. I did not know about the North American Roman Catholic Orthodox Ecumenical Dialogue statement about baptisms. Interesting.

 

[runningdude]

I am speaking of a hypothetical person who was never baptized according to the standard of the Catholic Church and he and the others do not know this fact. Therefore, he was never baptized again. Does the Church, out of her authority to bind and loose, fill with grace the graceless baptism?

No, but the church teaches that catechumens who die before baptism may still achieve salvation through the “baptism by faith”.

This would be the status of such a soul who received an invalid baptism through no fault of his own. He could be cleansed of his sin at his death due to a life long preparation for baptism.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think that both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism has the category of Baptism by desire. That is if a person would be Baptized if they could, but for some reason were prevented from being actually Baptized before they die, their intention would count for actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

I think that both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism has the category of Baptism by desire. That is if a person would be Baptized if they could, but for some reason were prevented from being actually Baptized before they die, their intention would count for actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I realize that. I was just wanting to know opinions on the post that I quoted.

 

[Peter_J]

I think that both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism has the category of Baptism by desire. That is if a person would be Baptized if they could, but for some reason were prevented from being actually Baptized before they die, their intention would count for actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Baptism of desire is also what came to my mind, reading this thread.