Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

question 3: patrick barne's "the Non-Orthodox"

Expand Messages
  • nrinne
    From the first assumptions I discussed (see question 1), here are what I see as beliefs proceding from those assumptions: L2: Recognize a baptism that is
    Message 1 of 2 , May 7 5:30 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      From the first assumptions I discussed (see question 1), here are what I see as beliefs proceding from those assumptions:


      L2: Recognize a baptism that is correct in form as efficacious and valid when persons confess Christ rightly in faith. If a person was baptized where it is possible or likely that the pastor's, their's, the congregation's, or the "denominations's" intent was to deny the true presence and intention of the Triune God (He *is* His Name, and He is there in the Sacrament to be gracious to sinners, no matter what our interpretation of His Name or actions), a person may be re-baptized if they are concerned about its validity.
      EO2: Recognize a baptism as effective when a person enters the EO church, as the form (Apostolic triple immersion in the Name of the Trinity) and intention (to be a part of what the person perceived to be the true church) is then filled with Ecclesiastical grace and given its effectiveness.


      Again, I want to make sure I am understanding EO teaching clearly (see my last paragraph of the "question 1" posting).

      Thank you,
      Nathan
    • Christopher Orr
      ... I think I mentioned in my response to Question 2 most of the things I would say about this. For more background on the way Orthodox looks at these
      Message 2 of 2 , May 11 2:42 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:30 AM, nrinne <Nrinne@...> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > From the first assumptions I discussed (see question 1), here are what I
        > see as beliefs proceding from those assumptions:
        > >
        > >
        > > L2: Recognize a baptism that is correct in form as efficacious and valid
        > when persons confess Christ rightly in faith. If a person was baptized where
        > it is possible or likely that the pastor's, their's, the congregation's, or
        > the "denominations's" intent was to deny the true presence and intention of
        > the Triune God (He *is* His Name, and He is there in the Sacrament to be
        > gracious to sinners, no matter what our interpretation of His Name or
        > actions), a person may be re-baptized if they are concerned about its
        > validity.
        > > EO2: Recognize a baptism as effective when a person enters the EO church,
        > as the form (Apostolic triple immersion in the Name of the Trinity) and
        > intention (to be a part of what the person perceived to be the true church)
        > is then filled with Ecclesiastical grace and given its effectiveness.
        > >
        >

        I think I mentioned in my response to Question 2 most of the things I would
        say about this.

        For more background on the 'way' Orthodox looks at these things, here are a
        number of different examples of how Orthodox has looked at the canonical and
        historical precedents regarding sacraments outside of the Church and how
        they are to be received, if at all, see:

        - On Non-Orthodox Baptism I
        (Metallinos)<http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm#periex>
        - On Non-Orthodox Baptism II
        (Pagodin)<http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm>
        - On Non-Orthodox Baptism III
        (Rodzianko)<http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/rodzianko-acceptance.html>
        - On Non-Orthodox Baptism IV
        (Erickson)<http://jbburnett.com/resources/erickson_reception-svtq97.pdf>

        They range from very exclusivist and 'traditionalist' to rather open. This
        is a question that was answered in the West by the position of Pope Stephen
        (in dispute with St. Cyprian of Carthage), but which remained more 'open' in
        the East except for the specific examples regulated in the canons. A
        similar 'disagreement' is to be found in the Orthodox Church today, so there
        is 'precedent' for its messiness in the absence of a centralized power such
        as developed in the West under Rome thus enshrining Pope Stephen's decision.

        Generally, any lack in a previous sacrament is seen to be accepted by
        economia and any lack is 'filled' by subsequent sacraments. So, Chrismation
        fulfills any lack in Baptism, Communion fulfills any lack in
        Baptism/Confirmation (Chrismation). This is not necessarily accepted by
        all.

        For the record, I was received into the Orthodox Church from WELS by baptism
        and chrismation.

        Christopher


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.