(RISU) - The Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan patriarchate (UOC-KP) issued an address to the Catholics, Anglicans and to the Primates and the wholeness of the national Orthodox Churches with the request to help stop in Ukraine the practice of “repeated baptism” by the Moscow Patriarchate of persons who already received the sacrament of Baptism in the Kyivan Patriarchate, “which practice is shameful for the whole Christian world,” the website of the UOC-KP reported.
“We understand that recognition of the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church is a complicated and long process. But already now we, as well as any conscious Christian, cannot put up with the existing practice of the Moscow Patriarchate to 'baptize' again people who already received baptism in the Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate. For this practice is a gross violation of the instructions of the Holy Scripture and Tradition, disregard for the Creed of Nicea and Constantinople, the dogmas and canons of the Church,” reads the address.
“Therefore, we address you primarily with the request to pray to God that He should teach the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate to stop violating the dogmas and canons of Christ’s Church, which recognizes only one baptism for the remission of sins,” states the Synod.
“We also ask the Blessed Primates of the National Orthodox Churches and the respected heads of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England with whom the Orthodox Churches maintain permanent Theological dialogue, if possible, to remind the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate that it is unacceptable to administer the 'second baptism' to those persons who are already baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the Holy Scripture and Tradition. For this practice absolutely contradicts the spirit of the inter-Christian dialogue and is ruining it,” stressed the bishops of the UOC-KP.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Kyivan Patriarchate: respect our baptisms!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No, it is economia to not rebaptize those baptized outside the church.
ReplyDeleteI hate to say it, but the OUC-KP is right on this one. They are schismatics, but they are not Trinitarian heretics. The canons of the OEcumenical Councils are clear on this subject and Moscow is wrong if they are in fact re-baptizing schismatics who received what was in all other respects an Orthodox Baptism.
ReplyDeleteTypo... OUC should be UOC.
ReplyDeleteThe Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine is violating the doctrine of the Orthodox Church -- and indeed of all Christian churches -- by "re-baptizing" an individual who has already been baptized by the Kyivan Patriarchate.
ReplyDeleteThe Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine must end this sacrilegious sacrament immediately -- that is, baptizing someone who has already been baptized -- or the Kyivan Patriarchate must take the matter to a higher ecclesiastical authority,such as the World Council of Churches (WCC).
"...or the Kyivan Patriarchate must take the matter to a higher ecclesiastical authority,such as the World Council of Churches (WCC)."
DeleteAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! In what alternate dimension is the WCC an authority on anything- or even more than a sick joke half the time?
Rather ironic that it's Moscow doing this as they are usually far more accepting of baptisms done outside the Church than the Greek tradition.
ReplyDeleteGeorge, I very much doubt that any Orthodox hierarch would appreciate hearing that the World Council of Churches is a "higher ecclesial authority"! Or are you being sarcastic? In any case, that is not the ecclesial understanding on which Orthodox participation in the WCC is based.
Why condemn the UOC-MP for doing something that ROCOR in the USA, the Athonites, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and conservative Greek and Serbian Orthodox do all the time (that is, baptize anyone who was baptized outside the canonical Orthodox Churches)?
ReplyDeleteReceiving any adult baptized outside the Church by any means other than "the full package" (renunciation of past heresies, baptism, and chrismation) is economia. It is the Church bowing down to accomodate human weakness. Through it's authority as THE Church, it *can* fill empty form of a graceless, heterodox or schismatic baptism... but it never *has* to.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called Kyiv Patriarchate is a cult that has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. Therefore, it makes complete sense that its adepts should be baptized (not "rebaptized") when they become Orthodox Christians.
ReplyDeleteI am not a supporter of the UOC-KP. However, looking at the complicated situation of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, the actions of the UOC-MP really add to the complications. Why should the UOC-KP take seriously any form of dialogue with the UOC-MP, if the latter is basically saying "If you join with us, you all need to be rebaptized, rechrismated and reordained"?
ReplyDeleteSome may retort that this is exactly what we do in dialogue with non-Orthodox churches, like Protestants. But in the case of Protestants, we each hold to different views of theology, ecclesiology and so on. What differences exist in these realms between the UOC-MP and UOC-KP, aside from the latter declaring autocephaly?
What is the practice of the various national churches when it comes to the Macedonian Orthodox Church? (Seriously--I'm asking.) I have never heard of folks from that church being rebaptized.
Why should the UOC-KP take seriously any form of dialogue with the UOC-MP, if the latter is basically saying "If you join with us, you all need to be rebaptized, rechrismated and reordained"?
ReplyDeleteI doubt very much that this is what is being said, o. David. (Is that o for Otyets?) In fact, I would be surprised if corporate reunion were to be done by any other means than concelebration of its hierarchs and the fullest extension of economia in a spirit of unity.
However, until such time as such corporate reunion is brought about, as long as the Kyiv Patriarchate is not recognised by Moscow as having sacramental grace, then there is absolutely nothing sacramentally or doctrinally questionable about baptising people whom it does not consider to have been baptised. As Anaxagoras has rightly said, if the correct outward forms of baptism were present, then ecenomy may be extended by receiving people by chrismation alone, and seeing this as supplying what was lacking in the empty form of baptism, but the Church is never obligated to extend such economy.
If people want to debate the rightness or wrongness of Moscow's non-recognition of the Kyiv Patriarchate's sacraments, or if people want to have a discussion about whether what Moscow is doing would be right in the hypothetical situation that Moscow were actually to recognise the KP's sacraments, then that is fine, but that would be a different conversation. The actual reality is that Moscow does not recognise those sacraments, and it is on this basis that Moscow baptises people who come to it from the KP. Surely people must be able to see that a church baptising people whom it considers unbaptised is not heretical. It is only Rebaptism if you accept that a baptism has already taken place, which Moscow does not.
As for the apparent discrepancy in the application of economy, this is simply the nature of economy. It is a pastoral concession in a particular instance according to what is best for the salvation of God's people in that particular instance. The extension of economy in one set of circumstances does not necessarily mean that similar circumstances in a different situation will always call for the same response.
ReplyDeleteSaid another way: economia is never precedent-setting.
ReplyDeleteFrankly I remain skeptical that it is true that the UOC-MP re-baptizes those already baptized by the UOC-KP. Do we have any documented proof that this is a consistent practice of the UOC-MP?
ReplyDeleteReleasing a press release like this may be an attempt by the UOC-KP to get the UOC-MP to reply in writing that it recognizes the baptisms of the UOC-KP. Again I ask for documented proof because the usual practice of the MP is NOT to re-baptise those previously baptized in the name of the Trinity in other Christian denominations.
The Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations does have a standing committee tackling the subject.
DeleteI'm also skeptical that the Moscow Patriarchate actually has a policy of rebaptizing in this case.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, though, this notion that rebaptizing non-Orthodox is the norm and anything else is economia is one of the most glaring examples of what could be called "Counter-Reformation Orthodoxy". Canon 95 of the Quinsext council says nothing of economia when it accepts the baptisms of various repentant heretics-- including Arians and Macedonians. The idea of the gracelessness of non-Orthodox baptisms was a direct importation of Tridentine theology that came into the Greek churches in the 18th century. As late as the 17th century, we have the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius al-Zaim including a demand that the Russians stop rebaptizing Poles among the reforms that he required of the Russian Patriarch Nikon, a reform that was accepted and since then rebaptism has never been Russian practice.
I like that phrase: "Counter-Reformation Orthodoxy"!
DeleteI don't think one can dismiss the obvious, historical, Orthodox, understanding of akriveia and economia as they pertain to baptism by simply inventing a term like "Counter-Reformation Orthodoxy". Fr George Metallinos disproves such a notion quite easily, though indirectly, in his book "I Confess One Baptism" for those interested.
ReplyDeleteFr John.
Yeah, I found the arguments put forward quite unconvincing, especially if you look at pre-18th century Orthodox practice and the history of the circumstances that led the Greeks to introduce rebaptism of Catholics. They pretty much decided to fight Counter-Reformation missionaries using Tridentine logic borrowed whole hog.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was a Roman Catholic and I was received into a diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Europe by chrismation. The question of my being "rebaptised" was never raised by the priest who received me.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that there is a debate on whether or not the reception of a convert who was Baptized with water "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," through Chrismation is an act or economy. However, regardless of how one deals with this issue the fact is that the Church allows a Bishop to receive a convert through Chrismation or Baptism depending on the circumstances. At times Moscow Baptized all converts while Constantinople Chrismated them. Then it changed and Moscow received converts through Chrismation and Constantanople Baptized every convert. I believe that the prevailing custom throughout the history of the Church has been to receive Baptized converts through Chrismation.
ReplyDeleteThe most common explanation is that when a Bishop receives a Baptized convert through Christimation it is an act of economy. However, it is considered arkibia or strictness when a Bishop receives a convert through Baptism who was Baptized in a non Orthodox group. In this case to emphasize that the non-canonical Ukranians are schismatics, Moscow has apparently decided to receive them back into the Church through Baptism it this report is true. If they all came back as a group, it is entirely likely that Moscow will revise its policy.
I believe that a few years ago the Greek Archdiocese, which usually receives Baptized converts by Chrismation received a group of Old Calendarists back into the Church by Baptism.
Archpriest John W. Morris