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

RE: APOSTATES

Expand Messages
  • Raskol
    I am new to this list. I am not a priest or clergyman of any type ( I am Orthodox in the ROCOR) but do have some questions about baptism and reception of
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 1 9:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I am new to this list. I am not a priest or clergyman of any type (
      I am Orthodox in the ROCOR) but do have some questions about baptism
      and reception of converts. I graduated from seminary and from what I
      remember and have read on my own I have alway been under the
      impression that unless a person has a triple immersion (form stressed
      here) he/she must be baptised. Now, I have seen it in my own parish
      that a convert was received by chrismation. I came from the OCA,and
      when I saw that I was a bit taken back. This is more so addressed to
      the clergy as a real and general question. I have been taught that:
      1. A person coming from another faith should have triple
      immersion/chrismation. IF the immersion from the PREVIOUS "church"
      WAS, in FACT, triple immersion...(go to 2)
      2. the convert can be accepted by chrismation since the chrismation
      validates the thriple immmersion.

      IN other words, the form must be there to validate. If one is
      received
      by chrismation but has an incomplete baptism, then there is no form
      to
      validate? Am I correct in believing so? Please correct me if I am
      wrong,but this is how I have believed for some time.
      Raskol
    • Rev. John R. Shaw
      In the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, and also in the Greek Church as well (at the very least in the past), baptism by triple immersion was viewed as
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 1 1:49 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        In the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, and also in the
        Greek Church as well (at the very least in the past), baptism by triple
        immersion was viewed as the desirable norm, but not obligatory. Thus
        where it was physically impossible to immerse someone (e.g. because of
        sickness), they were baptized by "infusion" (pouring). This is referred
        to in an early document called the Didache (Teaching of the Apostles).

        In addition to such cases, there were also areas where it had
        become customary to baptize by pouring instead of immersion--in Serbia,
        for example, babies were often, or even mostly, baptized by pouring.

        The reception of converts by chrismation was specified in various
        cases by the Ecumenical Councils, and was prescribed by the official
        service books of the Russian Church (and still is).

        However, beginning in 1965, after the reception of Priestmonk
        Panteleimon and his monastic house into the Church Abroad, there began a
        kind of "polarization" over this issue.

        Thus when I was received from Anglicanism into Orthodoxy, as a
        teenager, near the end of 1963, there was still no such question.
        Anglicans were supposed to be received by Chrismation, and so I was
        received. As I believe I posted earlier on this list, I subsequently
        finished high school and college as a ROCOR layman, and entered Holy
        Trinity Seminary in Jordanville in the fall of 1968. I made no secret of
        my background and the manner I had been received. However, *no one* at
        Jordanville said anything about "needing to be baptized". I was tonsured
        a reader in 1970 by Vl. Averky of blessed memory, and [as I also posted]
        wrote my dissertation on why the traditional rules for the reception of
        converts (by chrismation) should be *retained*.

        Beginning when I was in college, I had been subjected to urgings
        from various pro-Panteleimon individuals, that I should "still be
        batpized". I consulted with my spiritual father (who is now Bishop Daniel
        of Erie), and he showed me from the Councils and the Fathers that
        Panteleimon was *wrong*. For me that was conclusive.

        However, over the years, HTM continued its work. Panteleimon was
        a clever church politician, and he gained allies in high places. Thus it
        was that at the 1971 Sobor, an attempt was made to make it obligatory to
        baptize all converts. This attempt failed: at least one bishop, Vl.
        Afanassy of blessed memory, firmly and openly declared that he rejected
        this proposal--and that, at least in his diocese, the rubrics in the
        Trebnik, or Book of Needs, for the reception of converts would remain in
        effect.
        I was also at the 1971 Sobor, as the secretary of Vl. Nikon
        (Archbishop of Washington and Florida). On the day taht this all
        occurred, Vladyka explained to me in the evening that although
        Panteleimon had "got his way somewhat", in reality the decision of the
        Sobor had only made chrismation the minimum, and that it was still in the
        domain of the individual bishop how converts were to be received. Vl.
        Nikon himself did not enforce any changes after this "ukase" came out of
        the Sobor (or rather, out of Fr. George Grabbe's office after the Sobor).
        In the summer of 1972, for example, I was the godfather of a convert to
        Orthodoxy who, with Vladyka Nikon's blessing, was received by
        chrismation. I believe it was in 1974 that the late Fr. Stefan Bowbeel
        in New Brunswick received a former Roman Catholic girl by profession of
        faith (according to the Trebnik), I believe with Vladyka's knowledge;
        however, she went to visit Panteleimon's monastery in Brookline and was
        "put out with the catechumens".
        In the Diocese of Chicago and Detroit, Vl. Seraphim of blessed
        memory, and now Vl. Alypy, have given their blessing for converts to be
        received by chrismation--and indeed both have on occasions received such
        converts personally.
        It must be borne in mind that there are only two possibilities:
        either a person is a member of the Orthodox Church, or they are not. If
        they are--then baptizing them after that can only be wrong. If they are
        *not*--then many, many people have been misled into thinking they were
        members of the Church when they were not. Among them would be many
        Saints, including the last Empress of Russia. But more than that, such a
        thing would mean that countless priests and even bishops of the Church
        were in reality not part of the Church at all--and hence those baptized,
        married, and ordained by them were misled. So were countless faithful who
        approached the Holy Mysteries in the Church, falsely believing that the
        robed figures before them were deacons, priests and bishops--and this
        with the full blessing, or with the misleading silence, of the Orthodox
        Church throughout the world, up to the last two generations.
        Thus either we believe and accept what the Church teaches, or we
        believe a handful of individuals whose testimony is self-contradictory.

        This of course is not the same as the question of how it may be
        *wise* to receive a given convert, or what the person who converts may
        themselves desire.

        Thus, although I was chrismated myself, I have received converts
        in both ways.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw
        > 1. A person
        coming from another
        faith should have
        triple
        > immersion/chrismation. IF the immersion from the PREVIOUS "church"
        > WAS, in FACT, triple immersion...(go to 2)
        > 2. the convert can be accepted by chrismation since the chrismation
        > validates the thriple immmersion.
        >
        > IN other words, the form must be there to validate. If one is
        > received
        > by chrismation but has an incomplete baptism, then there is no form
        > to
        > validate? Am I correct in believing so? Please correct me if I am
        > wrong,but this is how I have believed for some time.
        > Raskol
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > This mailing list's archives are at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
        >
        >
        >
      • wilibrad@aol.com
        Father John, bless! Thank you for the wise elucidation about this on-going issue of Baptism vs. Chrismation. Your thorough and pastoral explanation was both
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 1 2:07 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Father John, bless!
          Thank you for the wise elucidation about this on-going issue of Baptism vs.
          Chrismation. Your thorough and pastoral explanation was both enlightening and
          heartening.
          Reader Stephen
          Norwich, CT
        • LJames6034@aol.com
          As usual, Father John Shaw has given us an excellent thesis. No one ever says: You are biased. You agree with me. But, in that he does, he must
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 1 7:34 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            As usual, Father John Shaw has given us an excellent thesis. No one ever
            says: "You are biased. You agree with me." But, in that he does, he must
            (surely!) be correct?!

            Moreover, he is able to quote chapter and verse, as it were.

            Like Father John, I, too, have received converts both ways. It depends pon
            the circumstances. Had I been receiving the Roman Catholic turned Muslim, I
            would have baptized him in the Orthodox Church, because he had renounced
            Christ (and hence his baptism) by converting to Islam.

            Father Andrew
          • Rev. John R. Shaw
            Who was it that wrote, Orthodoxy is *my* Doxy. Heterodoxy is somebody else s doxy ...? In Christ Fr. John R. Shaw
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 2 7:14 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Who was it that wrote, "Orthodoxy is *my* Doxy. Heterodoxy is
              somebody else's doxy"...?
              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw

              > As usual, Father John Shaw has given us an excellent thesis. No one ever
              > says: "You are biased. You agree with me." But, in that he does, he must
              > (surely!) be correct?!
              >
              > Moreover, he is able to quote chapter and verse, as it were.
              >
              > Like Father John, I, too, have received converts both ways. It depends pon
              > the circumstances. Had I been receiving the Roman Catholic turned Muslim, I
              > would have baptized him in the Orthodox Church, because he had renounced
              > Christ (and hence his baptism) by converting to Islam.
              >
              > Father Andrew
              >
              >
              >
              > This mailing list's archives are at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
              >
              >
              >
            • Michael Nikitin
              Before Pater 1 the RC were baptized. It didn t harm the Church. If the form was there the person should have no problem with being chrismated.If the form
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 2 1:00 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Before Pater 1 the RC were baptized. It didn't harm the Church.
                If the form was there the person should have no problem with being
                chrismated.If the form wasn't there the person should be baptized but then
                that's for the bishop to decide.

                Metr. Philaret baptized.

                Fr. John was the secretary for Vl.Nikon who with the other bishops were
                for passing the resolution to baptize. If only one bishop was against what
                does that say? After all,baptism was in the Russian Church prior to Peter
                1!

                In Russia before the revolution things in the Church were slacking.
                Improprieties were occuring more frequently and God didn't let the
                communists take over Russia if it wasn't warranted.God loves us and he
                brings us to repentence. ROCA was formed, a shining star but things are
                changing in ROCA.

                Let's not change more than what is necessary . If an obvious form is
                missing (i.e.triple immersion),unless the person is sick, let's not be too
                hasty in our decisions but say a prayer before performing so God can help in
                our judgement.

                Things changed quite a bit in the Churches for "the worse"since 1971.
                What was allowed then shouldn't be allowed now because of the
                heresies,especially ECUMENISM.

                Remember Chrismation is the restoration of Grace that is missing!


                From: "Rev. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...>
                Reply-To: orthodox-synod@egroups.com
                To: orthodox-synod@egroups.com
                Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES
                Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500 (CDT)
                MIME-Version: 1.0
                Received: from [208.50.99.201] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
                MHotMailBB5082E80066D82197D3D03263C9676423; Tue Aug 01 13:50:38 2000
                Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Aug 2000
                20:49:33 -0000
                Received: (qmail 7543 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
                Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000
                20:49:26 -0000
                Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw00.execpc.com) (169.207.1.78) by mta1
                with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
                Received: from earth (vrevjrs@... [169.207.16.1]) by
                mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id PAA22402 for <orthodox-synod@egroups.com>;
                Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500
                From sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki Tue Aug 01 13:53:22 2000
                X-eGroups-Return:
                sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki=hotmail.com@...
                In-Reply-To: <8m6t6s+hp9j@...>
                Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10008011520230.2887-100000@...>
                Mailing-List: list orthodox-synod@egroups.com; contact
                orthodox-synod-owner@egroups.com
                Delivered-To: mailing list orthodox-synod@egroups.com
                Precedence: bulk
                List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@egroups.com>

                In the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, and also in the
                Greek Church as well (at the very least in the past), baptism by triple
                immersion was viewed as the desirable norm, but not obligatory. Thus
                where it was physically impossible to immerse someone (e.g. because of
                sickness), they were baptized by "infusion" (pouring). This is referred
                to in an early document called the Didache (Teaching of the Apostles).

                In addition to such cases, there were also areas where it had
                become customary to baptize by pouring instead of immersion--in Serbia,
                for example, babies were often, or even mostly, baptized by pouring.

                The reception of converts by chrismation was specified in various
                cases by the Ecumenical Councils, and was prescribed by the official
                service books of the Russian Church (and still is).

                However, beginning in 1965, after the reception of Priestmonk
                Panteleimon and his monastic house into the Church Abroad, there began a
                kind of "polarization" over this issue.

                Thus when I was received from Anglicanism into Orthodoxy, as a
                teenager, near the end of 1963, there was still no such question.
                Anglicans were supposed to be received by Chrismation, and so I was
                received. As I believe I posted earlier on this list, I subsequently
                finished high school and college as a ROCOR layman, and entered Holy
                Trinity Seminary in Jordanville in the fall of 1968. I made no secret of
                my background and the manner I had been received. However, *no one* at
                Jordanville said anything about "needing to be baptized". I was tonsured
                a reader in 1970 by Vl. Averky of blessed memory, and [as I also posted]
                wrote my dissertation on why the traditional rules for the reception of
                converts (by chrismation) should be *retained*.

                Beginning when I was in college, I had been subjected to urgings
                from various pro-Panteleimon individuals, that I should "still be
                batpized". I consulted with my spiritual father (who is now Bishop Daniel
                of Erie), and he showed me from the Councils and the Fathers that
                Panteleimon was *wrong*. For me that was conclusive.

                However, over the years, HTM continued its work. Panteleimon was
                a clever church politician, and he gained allies in high places. Thus it
                was that at the 1971 Sobor, an attempt was made to make it obligatory to
                baptize all converts. This attempt failed: at least one bishop, Vl.
                Afanassy of blessed memory, firmly and openly declared that he rejected
                this proposal--and that, at least in his diocese, the rubrics in the
                Trebnik, or Book of Needs, for the reception of converts would remain in
                effect.
                I was also at the 1971 Sobor, as the secretary of Vl. Nikon
                (Archbishop of Washington and Florida). On the day taht this all
                occurred, Vladyka explained to me in the evening that although
                Panteleimon had "got his way somewhat", in reality the decision of the
                Sobor had only made chrismation the minimum, and that it was still in the
                domain of the individual bishop how converts were to be received. Vl.
                Nikon himself did not enforce any changes after this "ukase" came out of
                the Sobor (or rather, out of Fr. George Grabbe's office after the Sobor).
                In the summer of 1972, for example, I was the godfather of a convert to
                Orthodoxy who, with Vladyka Nikon's blessing, was received by
                chrismation. I believe it was in 1974 that the late Fr. Stefan Bowbeel
                in New Brunswick received a former Roman Catholic girl by profession of
                faith (according to the Trebnik), I believe with Vladyka's knowledge;
                however, she went to visit Panteleimon's monastery in Brookline and was
                "put out with the catechumens".
                In the Diocese of Chicago and Detroit, Vl. Seraphim of blessed
                memory, and now Vl. Alypy, have given their blessing for converts to be
                received by chrismation--and indeed both have on occasions received such
                converts personally.
                It must be borne in mind that there are only two possibilities:
                either a person is a member of the Orthodox Church, or they are not. If
                they are--then baptizing them after that can only be wrong. If they are
                *not*--then many, many people have been misled into thinking they were
                members of the Church when they were not. Among them would be many
                Saints, including the last Empress of Russia. But more than that, such a
                thing would mean that countless priests and even bishops of the Church
                were in reality not part of the Church at all--and hence those baptized,
                married, and ordained by them were misled. So were countless faithful who
                approached the Holy Mysteries in the Church, falsely believing that the
                robed figures before them were deacons, priests and bishops--and this
                with the full blessing, or with the misleading silence, of the Orthodox
                Church throughout the world, up to the last two generations.
                Thus either we believe and accept what the Church teaches, or we
                believe a handful of individuals whose testimony is self-contradictory.

                This of course is not the same as the question of how it may be
                *wise* to receive a given convert, or what the person who converts may
                themselves desire.

                Thus, although I was chrismated myself, I have received converts
                in both ways.

                In Christ
                Fr. John R. Shaw
                > 1. A person
                coming from another
                faith should have
                triple
                > immersion/chrismation. IF the immersion from the PREVIOUS "church"
                > WAS, in FACT, triple immersion...(go to 2)
                > 2. the convert can be accepted by chrismation since the chrismation
                > validates the thriple immmersion.
                >
                > IN other words, the form must be there to validate. If one is
                > received
                > by chrismation but has an incomplete baptism, then there is no form
                > to
                > validate? Am I correct in believing so? Please correct me if I am
                > wrong,but this is how I have believed for some time.
                > Raskol
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > This mailing list's archives are at
                http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                >
                >
                >


                This mailing list's archives are at
                http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod




                ________________________________________________________________________
                Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
              • pwrbarrett@aol.com
                In a message dated 8/1/2000 4:51:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vrevjrs@execpc.com writes:
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 2 3:36 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 8/1/2000 4:51:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  vrevjrs@... writes:

                  << Thus, although I was chrismated myself, I have received converts
                  in both ways. >>

                  I believe that converts *should* be baptized. But we all know
                  that they are sometimes received in other ways, and having
                  been received in other ways, they are Orthodox -- period.

                  I think the practice of baptizing those who were never baptized
                  -- when they have already been chrismating and have been
                  receiving Holy Communion -- is unnecessary and a little odd. But
                  I don't have a problem with it if it's understood as merely providing
                  the physical aspects of the Mystery, the grace of the Mystery
                  having already been received. It probably does much to ease the
                  minds of many who have not been baptized. On the other hand,
                  if Orthodox Christians are to be made to feel that they are outside
                  the Church and must be baptized, that's another thing.

                  (I was received into ROCOR by chrismation.)

                  Patrick Barrett
                • Rev. John R. Shaw
                  I did not say that only one bishop was against . What I said was that one bishop was very vocal in his opposition. I could name several other bishops who were
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 3 6:51 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I did not say that "only one bishop was against". What I said was
                    that one bishop was very vocal in his opposition. I could name several
                    other bishops who were not in sympathy with the proposal--and who quietly
                    preserved the older tradition.

                    It is also, as I think is adequately known, not correct to say
                    that "in Russia before Peter the Great all converts were baptized". For
                    most of its history, the Russian Church accepted converts by various
                    ceremonies also. There were, howver, periods in which converts were
                    baptized.
                    In Christ
                    Fr. John R. Shaw>
                    > Fr. John was the secretary for Vl.Nikon who with the other bishops were
                    > for passing the resolution to baptize. If only one bishop was against what
                    > does that say? After all,baptism was in the Russian Church prior to Peter
                    > 1!
                    >
                    > In Russia before the revolution things in the Church were slacking.
                    > Improprieties were occuring more frequently and God didn't let the
                    > communists take over Russia if it wasn't warranted.God loves us and he
                    > brings us to repentence. ROCA was formed, a shining star but things are
                    > changing in ROCA.
                    >
                    > Let's not change more than what is necessary . If an obvious form is
                    > missing (i.e.triple immersion),unless the person is sick, let's not be too
                    > hasty in our decisions but say a prayer before performing so God can help in
                    > our judgement.
                    >
                    > Things changed quite a bit in the Churches for "the worse"since 1971.
                    > What was allowed then shouldn't be allowed now because of the
                    > heresies,especially ECUMENISM.
                    >
                    > Remember Chrismation is the restoration of Grace that is missing!
                    >
                    >
                    > From: "Rev. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...>
                    > Reply-To: orthodox-synod@egroups.com
                    > To: orthodox-synod@egroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES
                    > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500 (CDT)
                    > MIME-Version: 1.0
                    > Received: from [208.50.99.201] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
                    > MHotMailBB5082E80066D82197D3D03263C9676423; Tue Aug 01 13:50:38 2000
                    > Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Aug 2000
                    > 20:49:33 -0000
                    > Received: (qmail 7543 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
                    > Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Aug 2000
                    > 20:49:26 -0000
                    > Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw00.execpc.com) (169.207.1.78) by mta1
                    > with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
                    > Received: from earth (vrevjrs@... [169.207.16.1]) by
                    > mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id PAA22402 for <orthodox-synod@egroups.com>;
                    > Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500
                    > >From sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki Tue Aug 01 13:53:22 2000
                    > X-eGroups-Return:
                    > sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki=hotmail.com@...
                    > In-Reply-To: <8m6t6s+hp9j@...>
                    > Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10008011520230.2887-100000@...>
                    > Mailing-List: list orthodox-synod@egroups.com; contact
                    > orthodox-synod-owner@egroups.com
                    > Delivered-To: mailing list orthodox-synod@egroups.com
                    > Precedence: bulk
                    > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@egroups.com>
                    >
                    > In the practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, and also in the
                    > Greek Church as well (at the very least in the past), baptism by triple
                    > immersion was viewed as the desirable norm, but not obligatory. Thus
                    > where it was physically impossible to immerse someone (e.g. because of
                    > sickness), they were baptized by "infusion" (pouring). This is referred
                    > to in an early document called the Didache (Teaching of the Apostles).
                    >
                    > In addition to such cases, there were also areas where it had
                    > become customary to baptize by pouring instead of immersion--in Serbia,
                    > for example, babies were often, or even mostly, baptized by pouring.
                    >
                    > The reception of converts by chrismation was specified in various
                    > cases by the Ecumenical Councils, and was prescribed by the official
                    > service books of the Russian Church (and still is).
                    >
                    > However, beginning in 1965, after the reception of Priestmonk
                    > Panteleimon and his monastic house into the Church Abroad, there began a
                    > kind of "polarization" over this issue.
                    >
                    > Thus when I was received from Anglicanism into Orthodoxy, as a
                    > teenager, near the end of 1963, there was still no such question.
                    > Anglicans were supposed to be received by Chrismation, and so I was
                    > received. As I believe I posted earlier on this list, I subsequently
                    > finished high school and college as a ROCOR layman, and entered Holy
                    > Trinity Seminary in Jordanville in the fall of 1968. I made no secret of
                    > my background and the manner I had been received. However, *no one* at
                    > Jordanville said anything about "needing to be baptized". I was tonsured
                    > a reader in 1970 by Vl. Averky of blessed memory, and [as I also posted]
                    > wrote my dissertation on why the traditional rules for the reception of
                    > converts (by chrismation) should be *retained*.
                    >
                    > Beginning when I was in college, I had been subjected to urgings
                    > from various pro-Panteleimon individuals, that I should "still be
                    > batpized". I consulted with my spiritual father (who is now Bishop Daniel
                    > of Erie), and he showed me from the Councils and the Fathers that
                    > Panteleimon was *wrong*. For me that was conclusive.
                    >
                    > However, over the years, HTM continued its work. Panteleimon was
                    > a clever church politician, and he gained allies in high places. Thus it
                    > was that at the 1971 Sobor, an attempt was made to make it obligatory to
                    > baptize all converts. This attempt failed: at least one bishop, Vl.
                    > Afanassy of blessed memory, firmly and openly declared that he rejected
                    > this proposal--and that, at least in his diocese, the rubrics in the
                    > Trebnik, or Book of Needs, for the reception of converts would remain in
                    > effect.
                    > I was also at the 1971 Sobor, as the secretary of Vl. Nikon
                    > (Archbishop of Washington and Florida). On the day taht this all
                    > occurred, Vladyka explained to me in the evening that although
                    > Panteleimon had "got his way somewhat", in reality the decision of the
                    > Sobor had only made chrismation the minimum, and that it was still in the
                    > domain of the individual bishop how converts were to be received. Vl.
                    > Nikon himself did not enforce any changes after this "ukase" came out of
                    > the Sobor (or rather, out of Fr. George Grabbe's office after the Sobor).
                    > In the summer of 1972, for example, I was the godfather of a convert to
                    > Orthodoxy who, with Vladyka Nikon's blessing, was received by
                    > chrismation. I believe it was in 1974 that the late Fr. Stefan Bowbeel
                    > in New Brunswick received a former Roman Catholic girl by profession of
                    > faith (according to the Trebnik), I believe with Vladyka's knowledge;
                    > however, she went to visit Panteleimon's monastery in Brookline and was
                    > "put out with the catechumens".
                    > In the Diocese of Chicago and Detroit, Vl. Seraphim of blessed
                    > memory, and now Vl. Alypy, have given their blessing for converts to be
                    > received by chrismation--and indeed both have on occasions received such
                    > converts personally.
                    > It must be borne in mind that there are only two possibilities:
                    > either a person is a member of the Orthodox Church, or they are not. If
                    > they are--then baptizing them after that can only be wrong. If they are
                    > *not*--then many, many people have been misled into thinking they were
                    > members of the Church when they were not. Among them would be many
                    > Saints, including the last Empress of Russia. But more than that, such a
                    > thing would mean that countless priests and even bishops of the Church
                    > were in reality not part of the Church at all--and hence those baptized,
                    > married, and ordained by them were misled. So were countless faithful who
                    > approached the Holy Mysteries in the Church, falsely believing that the
                    > robed figures before them were deacons, priests and bishops--and this
                    > with the full blessing, or with the misleading silence, of the Orthodox
                    > Church throughout the world, up to the last two generations.
                    > Thus either we believe and accept what the Church teaches, or we
                    > believe a handful of individuals whose testimony is self-contradictory.
                    >
                    > This of course is not the same as the question of how it may be
                    > *wise* to receive a given convert, or what the person who converts may
                    > themselves desire.
                    >
                    > Thus, although I was chrismated myself, I have received converts
                    > in both ways.
                    >
                    > In Christ
                    > Fr. John R. Shaw
                    > > 1. A person
                    > coming from another
                    > faith should have
                    > triple
                    > > immersion/chrismation. IF the immersion from the PREVIOUS "church"
                    > > WAS, in FACT, triple immersion...(go to 2)
                    > > 2. the convert can be accepted by chrismation since the chrismation
                    > > validates the thriple immmersion.
                    > >
                    > > IN other words, the form must be there to validate. If one is
                    > > received
                    > > by chrismation but has an incomplete baptism, then there is no form
                    > > to
                    > > validate? Am I correct in believing so? Please correct me if I am
                    > > wrong,but this is how I have believed for some time.
                    > > Raskol
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > This mailing list's archives are at
                    > http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > This mailing list's archives are at
                    > http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________________________________________________
                    > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > This mailing list's archives are at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Olga Mitrenina
                    ... From: Rev. John R. Shaw To: Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE:
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 3 12:13 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Rev. John R. Shaw <vrevjrs@...>
                      To: <orthodox-synod@egroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:51 PM
                      Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES

                      > It is also, as I think is adequately known, not correct to say
                      > that "in Russia before Peter the Great all converts were baptized". For
                      > most of its history, the Russian Church accepted converts by various
                      > ceremonies also. There were, howver, periods in which converts were
                      > baptized.
                      > In Christ
                      > Fr. John R. Shaw>

                      In Russia the acception of all the heretics through the Baptism became an
                      established norm at the Council of 1620, which was abandoned by the Council
                      of 1667 which has re-introduced the contemporary Greek norm of the
                      Chrismation only. However, even this norm was quietly abrogated under Peter
                      the Great, while it was always effective officially.

                      My two previous postings to this list were not intended to start any
                      discussion on the various possibilities to translate the official documents
                      of the World Orthodoxy. Instead, I'd like to present some food to thought to
                      all of us when we are listening to the ROCA liberal wing: what is the
                      exact position of these liberals in the eyes of their beloved World
                      Orthodoxy? What they have to do with their love with no hope to any
                      reciprocality?

                      Very curious to hear something opposite from the side of the WO officials,
                      Yours,
                      Olga Mitrenina
                    • Rev. John R. Shaw
                      If ROCA has a liberal wing , I don t know who belongs to it. There are those of us who learned the faith and practice of Orthodoxy, in ROCOR/ROCA, quite
                      Message 10 of 11 , Aug 3 2:35 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        If ROCA has a "liberal wing", I don't know who belongs to it.
                        There are those of us who learned the faith and practice of Orthodoxy, in
                        ROCOR/ROCA, quite possibly before Olga was born, or before she had heard
                        of ROCOR.
                        I am against ecumenism, modernism, and most of what goes by the
                        name of "liberal" in our society; however, being opposed to communism or
                        Nazism does not mean we have to point to innocent people and call them
                        communists or Nazis.
                        In Christ
                        Fr. John R. Shaw
                        > all of us when we are
                        listening to the
                        ROCA liberal
                        wing: what is
                        the > exact position of these liberals in the eyes of their beloved World
                        > Orthodoxy? What they have to do with their love with no hope to any
                        > reciprocality?
                        >
                        > Very curious to hear something opposite from the side of the WO officials,
                        > Yours,
                        > Olga Mitrenina
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > This mailing list's archives are at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Fr. George Primak
                        Dear brethren in Christ, I would like to add some words to the discussion held couple of days ago concerning the correct way to perform the Mystery of The Holy
                        Message 11 of 11 , Aug 6 2:07 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear brethren in Christ,

                          I would like to add some words to the discussion held couple of days ago
                          concerning the correct way to perform the Mystery of The Holy Baptism.
                          First of all, as I understand, the greek word "baptisma" means
                          immersion.
                          Who would like to get more information related to the opinion of the
                          Holy Fathers of the Church about the correct way of the baptism, can
                          find it in the book "Novyj Margarit" pages 350-358, which is possible to
                          get in the Holy Trinity Monastery book store. Also the similar opinion
                          is mentioned in the book "I confess One Baptism" of Fr. George
                          Metallinos, pages 39-40.

                          With love in Christ,

                          Fr. George
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.