It is understandable that people might consider baptism to be the preferable process in the reception of people into the Faith. Such a method certainly has historical backing and is still the process of some in the Americas.
As more and more denominations become unmoored from the traditions they received (of which the baptismal formula is sadly also a victim), we can speak less surely about the baptisms those people received. On the other hand, asking someone to step into a horse trough to be submerged into water in front of other people is also a daunting thing to ask especially as we have established norms on the books already that usually require no such thing.
This is, to me, just another marker in the well. The water level will continue to sink and our reliance on the practices of others will continue to recede. Will it even be another 20 years before baptism becomes the norm and not the exception?
 |
Englewood, NJ / February 20, 2018 (Antiochian.org) - In response to numerous unnamed sources spreading confusion over the internet, His Eminence Metropolitan JOSEPH reaffirms the long-standing policy of the Antiochian Archdiocese, which is in accordance with the practice of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, regarding the reception of converts to the Faith. To be clear, Holy Baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity, followed by Holy Chrismation, is the normative means by which one is initiated into the Holy Church. When receiving those coming into Holy Orthodoxy from religious confessions who profess a belief in the Holy Trinity and baptize with water in the Name of Father, and of Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the Church from ancient times has done so through means of Holy Chrismation or a profession of the Faith – depending on the circumstances. When questions arise requiring discernment as to how a person is to be received into the Church, a priest must consult with his local bishop.
His Eminence reaffirmed this practice recently during a clergy seminar for the Diocese of Los Angeles and the West, where he has continued to be the local bishop since his election as Metropolitan. In this capacity, His Eminence made clear that he is the point of reference for such questions for the clergy in attendance.
Posts
This is an issue that is going to become more and more of a problem. The time is past when our bishops should have made it clear that some of the so called mainline Protestant sects have moved from heresy into the realm of outright apostasy. How can we be accepting the baptisms of the "Episcopal Church" given where they are today? To be clear I am not arguing that we all need to become rigorists and deny the possibility of Oikonomia. But accepting the baptisms of groups that are rewriting parts of Holy Scripture to suit their modernist needs, that are labeling vice as virtue and virtue as vice, that have ordained clergy who openly deny every single word of the Creed after "I believe..." is a bridge too far for me. There are limits, even to Oikonomia.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I quite agree. With all due respect to His Eminence, notorious heretics like John Spong "professed a belief in the Holy Trinity and baptized with water in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Such an external criterion is meaningless given the liberal apostasy engulfing mainline western Protestantism. The real issue is whether or not we can recognize our own Faith in a large measure in these other confessions, and if not, converts from them ought to be received by baptism.
ReplyDeleteSo what does this really mean?
ReplyDeleteI suspect it means that "long-standing policies" regarding ecumenical relationships need to be looked at again in the light of the current situation. Former policies presupposed a degree of (small "o") orthodoxy on the part of our ecumenical partners which no longer exists.
ReplyDeleteThe Patriarchate of Antioch is simply following what was universal Orthodox practice. In 1484, the Church decided at the Council of Constantinople that Roman Catholics should be received by Chrismation. At the Council of Jerusalem, Bethlehem in 1672 the Church decided to receive Protestants by Chrismation. That was universal Orthodox practice until Patriarch Cyril V issued an order in 1755 requiring that all converts be received by Baptism. The Patriarchate of Antioch rejected Cyril's decree. Indeed, it was done without the approval of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Significantly, at the end of the 19th century the Holy Synod of Constantinople decided to allow local Bishops to receive converts by Chrismation.
ReplyDeleteThe guidelines of the Antiochian Archdioces state that the Priest must receive assurance that the convert was baptized, "In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." If not, the convert must be received by Baptism.
It should be noted that the guidelines also state that the reception of a convert by Chrismation is not the recognition of a non-Orthodox Baptism. Instead, it is completing what was lacking in the non-Orthodox administration.
Fr. John W. Morris.
I appreciate the desire to defend one's church, but my point was that the presuppositions about the state of the heterodox converting to Orthodoxy which formed the basis of the (up until now) universal Orthodox practice, can no longer can be validly presupposed. The revolutionary changes among the heterodox necessitates a change in our way of receiving them.
DeleteThis is not a matter that can or should be decided on the Internet. Fr. Lawrence, if the method of receiving converts is to change, God will inspire our Bishops to change it.
ReplyDeleteThose Protestant sects that have totally embraced liberalism would also be those who baptize in the "Name of the Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer," of some other politically correct terms. Since that is the case, any convert who was baptized using such heretical terminology would be received by Baptism. Thereby, resolving your problem.
Fr. John W. Morris.
Fr. John,
DeleteWhen Arians baptized using the right words St. Athanasius said that it wasn’t a baptism. Fr. Lawrence is merely discussing the issue on the net, no one is thinking this forum is an Ecumenical Council. You came across as dismissive of his main point: it’s about theology and practice, not formulas.
Fr. John, I was received 30 years ago and had been baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Still, I was required to furnish Bp. Antoun of blessed memory with information concerning both the rite and the theology under lying it.
ReplyDeleteIt was examined and rejected so I was received by Baptism.
What I gather from this is simply the direction that similar care and discretion be taken in light of the growing apostasy around us.
You are right, it is nothing new but perhaps a broader application out of necessity?