Articles for tag: baptism, canons, conversion, valid baptism

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

There is no “valid” baptism outside the Church — Part 1 of 2

Dear A.,

The topic of the reception of heterodox Christians by the Orthodox Church addressed in your comment to our “MANIFESTO1, is of broad interest, and I would like to share my response to you with our readers. For their benefit here is your comment in its entirety:

I appreciate the aim of this manifesto. However, I think that the idea that baptism is necessarily the way to receive heretics is far from established. When the Russian church decided to rebaptize Catholic converts in the seventeenth century, bishops of Eastern churches clamored to stop them. And the Russians did stop that practice. Baptism only became the normative means of receiving Catholics in the Greek church in the eighteenth century because of an obscure theological controversy that was inspired by a dubious figure. Just read the history, the answer is not clear. Sources: Fr. Ambrose Pogodin provides a good history here. Andrei Psarev examines a relevant canon here. Fr. John Erickson (I know) has a useful overview here.

It seems that you have not read carefully the particular paragraph concerning baptism.2 We are not saying that “baptism is necessarily the way to receive heretics”; rather, we are critical of the guidelines of the Ecumenical Patriarch who recognizes baptisms that take place outside the Church as valid–something the Church outright rejects–turning the oikonomia (the exception) into akriveia (the rule), and not allowing akriveia even by oikonomia!–something never before seen throughout the history of the Church.

According to Prof. Fr. John Romanides:

Orthodox Churches usually accepted into their membership individuals or Churches by means of either exactitude (akribeia ) or economy (oikonomia ).

  1. By Exactitude one is accepted by baptism, chrismation and profession of the Orthodox Faith accompanied by rejection of former errors.
  2. By Economy one is accepted by chrismation and profession of the Orthodox faith and the rejection of former errors.

Neither of these two means of entry into the Church is in itself a judgment on the validity or non-validity of the sacraments of the Church of origin, since there are no mysteries outside of the Body of Christ.3

Even the arch-ecumenist Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk confesses the one and only Orthodox FAITH concerning the question of sacraments outside the Church:

“The Augustinian understanding of the ‘efficacy’ of the sacraments was never fully accepted in the Orthodox Church. Such an understanding of the sacraments is unacceptable for Orthodox Tradition, for it is an understanding in which the grace inherent within them is considered autonomous, independent of the Church. The sacraments can be performed only within the Church, and it is the Church that bestows efficacy, reality, and salvation on them.”4

When and how to exercise oikonomia is a secondary issue, and it is left up to the discretion of the bishops and their episcopal synods when and how to apply it. The main issue that all Orthodox should and must agree upon is that baptisms that take place outside the Church are not valid baptisms. I briefly addressed this subject elsewhere many years ago. Here is what I wrote:

ACCEPTANCE AND RECOGNITION OF BAPTISM
(ACCEPTANCE DOES NOT MEAN RECOGNITION)

Acceptance addresses the issue how does the Church receive converts. Recognition addresses the “validity” of baptism.

The Church recognizes no baptism as “valid” that is performed outside of her. However, in the exercise of oikonomia (dispensation), at times and places and special circumstances, at the discretion of a bishop or synod of bishops, she accepts a baptism that resembles to a greater or lesser extent her baptism, of someone who is being received in the Orthodox Church from heresy or schism. Acceptance is not concerned with “validity” or recognition of baptisms performed outside of her, concepts which are foreign to her terminology and practice.

The fact that the Orthodox Church receives certain converts by oikonomia through Chrismation does not mean that the Orthodox Church recognizes a baptism performed outside her pleroma nor does she admit by such action that there is grace among the heterodox.

How the heterodox should be received has become not an issue of whether to exercise akriveia (strictness) or oikonomia (dispensation, exception), but an imposition by the ecumenists of their erroneous belief, namely that there is one baptism and that this one baptism is administered validly by anyone (even by non-Christians!), as long as the name of the Holy Trinity is invoked and water is used in any form.

Because of the prevailing ecumenism, it has almost become an article of faith that any baptism performed, whether inside or outside the Orthodox Church, is a valid baptism (so long as it is performed by invoking the name of the Holy Trinity). For this reason the Ecumenical Patriarchate no longer allows, under any circumstances, the reception of heterodox through baptism, because it is viewed as a repetition of the one true baptism. They will no longer allow the strictness to be applied even by oikonomia!!

Ecumenists are not willing to accept the patristic and synodal witness, that when the Church allows baptism by oikonomia she does so without addressing at all its “validity” outside the Church–which the ecumenists do because of their ecumenistic and synchretistic considerations.

I also ask you to look up the index entry “baptism” in my book The Heavenly Banquet5. I argue that especially in this country of “church-hoppers” the akriveia should be followed.

Coming back to your comment, I ask you: when you say – if you do – that Roman Catholics should not be baptized when they are received, is it because you believe the baptism conferred to them should be recognized as “valid” or because we don’t want to offend them, and we should not make conversion more difficult for them and therefore we should exercise oikonomia?

If you want to defend the validity of the baptism offered by the Roman Catholic Church, searching Church history won’t give you the answer. The current practice is that even if you wanted to be baptized it is not granted to you in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical (read ecumenist) Patriarchate, so it has become a moot point. In fact, conversions are discouraged because the Ecumenical Patriarch wants the Orthodox Church to be united with the Roman Catholic Church in toto, as two sister Churches who recognize each other as two lungs of the same body, and re-establish a broken communion caused by misunderstandings, therefore conversions [through Baptism] are no longer allowed.

But please tell me: why would anyone who has already received the “ONE baptism for the remission of sins” want to join the Orthodox Church since…

  • he has received the laver of regeneration and has been spiritually reborn
  • he has already received remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)
  • he is already walking “in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4)
  • the doors to the kingdom of God are already wide open to him (John 3:5).

What more would one hope to obtain in the Orthodox Church that he has not already received?

If through a baptism outside the Orthodox Church one has been incorporated into the Body of Christ, it follows that one has become a member of the Holy Church, so what else would one be seeking? If one has this, the first and most fundamental of the Church’s Mysteries, one can receive all of the sacraments. If one has the authority to baptize, he also has the authority to offer the bloodless sacrifice. Why, then, would anyone abandon his Church in order to join the Orthodox Church?

We will address this subject more in our next post.

  1. Posted on March 10, 2017.
  2. “The [Ecumenical] Patriarch has given the directive to no longer receive those Christians who want to become Orthodox through baptism, because, he says, since they are baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity they have a valid baptism. For us there are no Sacraments outside the Church.”
  3. A Critique of the Balamand Agreement, Orthodox Christian Information Center, October 14, 2001.
  4. Orthodox Christianity Vol. II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, p. 405.
  5. pp. 211-212. I wish everyone would have this book as a reference for many topics. [editor’s note: Order this book and receive a 30% discount by using the coupon code: 1BAPTISM at checkout. Order three or more of our books and receive 40% off by using the coupon code 4BAPTISM at checkout.

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Whatever shines is not always gold

Editor’s note: This article is a personal account written by Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis about his experience in Italy in the early 1960’s. We publish this article with his consent.

I was not even 20 when my life changed. I became Roman Catholic! I was born and raised in Chania, Crete (Greece) into the Orthodox faith. In my last year of high school I studied Italian with a Franciscan monk. (Like my older brother and many other students we looked in those days to study abroad—Italy, Germany, England.) I even sung Panis Angelicus in his church. The nuns loved it. It never occurred to me to inquire into the RC faith. It was not my Church. I was Orthodox.

Emmanuel while serving in the Greek army.

I went to Italy to study engineering. Instead, in the middle of my second year I happened to walk into a religious bookstore run by the Daughters of St. Paul, a Roman Catholic religious congregation. I was immediately impressed by the religious fervor and zealous missionary spirit of these young, vibrant, educated, and intelligent nuns. This religious congregation was dedicated to spreading the word of God through the modern means of communication. The male congregation was called The Pious Society of St. Paul. A “family” of a total of ten congregations and institutes founded by Don James Alberione, who has now reached beatification (the last step before being declared a saint). They started their “apostolate” primarily in publishing, but soon they moved into recording, production of documentary movies—they even owned and operated radio and TV stations, and much more, all over the world.

After I found out about their mission I became convinced that they were living in the present, whereas we Orthodox lived in the past. What I witnessed in Italy was life-changing. I realized that they were carrying out The Great Commission (Acts 1:8). The goal is to reach the people where they are. When “Come to me” does not work, the good shepherd goes out to seek the stray sheep. The doors of our Orthodox churches were open, but empty of people, especially young people. I saw that the people of these organizations were on the right track, spreading the word in the only way possible: in the language and manner appealing to the culture of the time and place. I had not witnessed anything like it in our Orthodox lands. I was converted almost instantly. I abandoned my studies in engineering and, after a short trip back home to advise my parents of this turn in my life, and as it happens with many converts, I joined The Pious Society of St. Paul. On May 30, 1961, at age 19 and a half, I officially entered the RC Church. Shortly thereafter I took my temporary vows, with the intention of eventually becoming a monk and a priest. The irony is that when, at age 18, I was leaving Greece to go to Italy I was convinced Greece was in need of missionaries (now more than ever before).

Emmanuel (center) while preparing to become a Roman Catholic monk in Rome.

I was first at Ariccia, near the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, outside of Rome, in the beautiful Alban hills, then in Rome proper, near St. Paul “Outside the Walls.” I’ve seen two popes: John XXIII and Paul VI. I was in Rome during the Vatican II Council.

Like everyone else I was working, while studying the courses leading to the Licenza: philosophy, Latin and Italian languages and literature, etc. I worked as a proofreader. I also worked with printing machines and record presses. I was very happy at the Institute. Yet, something was missing. I prayed hard during the four years I stayed at the Institute of St. Paul. But life became less and less fulfilling. In private I was studying very hard, the Fathers and the history of the early Church. I just couldn’t reconcile certain beliefs and practices of the RC Church with what I was studying, particularly the primacy and infallibility of the pope. My superiors thought it was a matter of Roman rite—and that too played a role. They put me in touch with the Byzantine Catholics. They arranged for me to meet with the Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV. It was to no avail. Other dogmatic issues bothered me: Filioque, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, rationalism, scholasticism.

I have found out that whatever shines is not always gold. I thought that if I stayed any longer I would suffocate. In the meantime my temporary vows were expiring. Soon I would have to take permanent vows. At that difficult juncture of my life I met with Archimandrite Maximos Agiorgousis (now the former Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh). He received me back paternally: “You were too young to know what you were doing.” Later he would tell me: “I saved you from the wolf’s mouth.” After staying a month close to him, I returned to Greece, where I served my two years in the Greek army, pondering all along what to do with my life.

My intention was to go to a monastery—an Orthodox monastery. I was thinking of St. Catherine’s, on Mount Sinai. But I was without a spiritual guide. I hesitated. So when my sister, who was married in Cleveland, Ohio invited me over, I went, to clear my head. A year and a half later, instead of cooling off, I met a Polish-American girl. Within six months we were married. I’d forgotten about my vocation. But not for good. Sixteen years later I found myself dissatisfied with my work in the insurance business. The old “calling” returned. With my wife’s consent, at age 45, I enrolled at Holy Cross in Brookline, MA, parting from my wife and our three children in St. Louis. With credits for previous studies at Cleveland State University, Oberlin College and The University of Chicago, and a very heavy load, I finished my theological studies in two years obtaining my Masters of Divinity “with distinction.”

Before I was even ordained a priest I was translating hymns from Greek to English, striving to render them in such a way as to preserve precisely the original melody. I have composed non-liturgical songs and hymns for children, who know next to nothing in English. I have written Orthodox Christmas plays for the youth. I’ve also written two liturgies for youth choirs. I always made all the services available to my parishioners—not only the Liturgies, but also Matins, Vespers, Supplicatory Canon, Complines. I also produced literature, for distribution in the narthex for free, for everyone, but particularly for inquirers.

It bothered me that as Orthodox we were content remaining an unknown entity in our own cities and neighborhoods. Then the Pauline Congregations came to mind and their “apostolate”: how they spread the word through the modern media of communications around the globe. However the difference between religious orders unified under a vote of obedience and us, disunited jurisdictionally, made our effort difficult. When I began to talk about making a unified effort to evangelize the people around us, I met resistance, both by our hierarchs and our fellow priests…

Read Part Two: “The parish: an evangelism center”

GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUE CHURCH

Orthodox Christians all over the world have received the unchanging Christian Faith, passed down from the Holy Apostles to their successors, and continue to practice it today in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – The Orthodox Church.
%%tb-image-alt-text%%

Why do People Convert to Orthodox Christianity?

why convert to orthodoxy

Why do people convert to Orthodoxy? Why have so many Evangelical ministers embraced the Orthodox faith? What do they find so attractive? It is not always easy to advance strong “arguments” for these conversions. Can we attempt to put into words why a host of people have converted and continue to convert to the Orthodox faith?

Conversion is not only a matter of the intellect, but also of the heart. One is attracted to Orthodoxy in the same way one falls in love. There is a certain “chemistry” involved, which one cannot so easily verbalize. To the extent, however, one could “intellectualize” the reasons for converting, he or she would probably summarize them along these lines:

1. Orthodoxy provides stability

In our ever-changing world, in the constant re-design of services and re-evaluation of beliefs, Orthodoxy stands as a mountain of granite, unshakable by fads and movements and political correctness. Orthodoxy insists tenaciously on the role of tradition which is her very life and builds upon its past, without revisions. Orthodoxy knows where she stands, and she is in no need to re-define herself. People are attracted by the permanence of Orthodoxy.

Clearly this stability is found in no other church. This statement cannot be challenged. In the security of the Orthodox Church one finds peace, reassurance. In Orthodoxy one encounters the eternal, unchangeable God.

2. Orthodoxy is true

The reason Orthodoxy is stable is because she is grounded in the truth. One finds that the Orthodox Church is indeed “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). She rightly claims the wholeness of the truth. Her name is “right belief”. She is conscious of being the true Church founded by Christ. She stands firm on her dogmatic and moral teachings. She is committed to the same, unchanging, absolute truth. Orthodoxy is true to the Lord, to herself and to her past.

Any objective historian can discover that the permanence of Orthodoxy is due to the preservation and the passing on of the apostolic faith unadulterated, pure. No new dogmas of faith spring out of the blue in her life. Her allegiance to the perennial truths of Christianity is appreciated by sincere seekers.

3. The other-worldliness of Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy attracts seekers with her “other-worldliness,” with her holiness, with her worship, with her services and sacraments, with the form and content of her religious expression, with her iconography, with her chanting, with her mysticism, with her monasticism, with her life “between heaven and earth.” One “feels” that the Church is not “just” a worldly organization, but a divine-human organism. Orthodoxy appeals to the soul–not just to the intellect or the senses.

Other religions and faiths occupy themselves with this life, with this world. Orthodoxy looks forward, to the age to come. She is not the end—she is “the way.” Although she is in this world, she is not of this world (cf. John 17:14.16).

4. The beauty of Her services

“We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere upon earth. We cannot describe it to you: only this we know, that God dwells there among men, and that their service surpasses the worship of all other places. For we cannot forget that beauty” (Envoys of the Russian Prince Vladimir, after experiencing the Divine Liturgy at the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople in the year 987).

The beauty and majesty of her liturgical services celebrating the majesty and mystery of God continue to be a major “attraction” to many seekers of a religious experience that transcends the mundane reality and elevates the spirit to the divine realm.

5. Her crucified life

“If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you… If they persecuted me, they will persecute you” (John 15:18. 20). The Orthodox Church has suffered throughout her history. She has offered more martyrs in the twentieth century under communism than most churches have members. She is the Church of martyrs. This gives strength and spiritual joy to her members, true to the Lord’s words, “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Mt. 5:12).

Her “admirable heritage of perseverance amid terrible fires of persecution” has been noted even by non-Orthodox admirers, as one of her strongest attractions and sources of strength.


These “arguments” won’t convert anyone. As we said, conversion is a love affair. Who can explain why one has fallen in love with a given person? The sum of all parts won’t add to the total. The stability that the Orthodox Church provides for the seeker consists in the assurance of the truth she possesses, her “other-worldly” and mysterious character, the beauty of her liturgical celebrations and her crucified life—they all attest to what she is for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear: the unique, beloved Bride of Christ.

Item added to cart.
0 items - 0,00 $