Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES
- 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
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
> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] RE: APOSTATES
> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500 (CDT)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Received: from [184.108.40.206] 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) (220.127.116.11) by mta1
> with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 20:49:26 -0000
> Received: from earth (vrevjrs@... [18.104.22.168]) by
> mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id PAA22402 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
> Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:49:23 -0500
> >From sentto-1289487-398-965162967-mikeniki Tue Aug 01 13:53:22 2000
> In-Reply-To: <8m6t6s+hp9j@...>
> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10008011520230.2887-100000@...>
> Mailing-List: list email@example.com; contact
> Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.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
> 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
> > 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
> This mailing list's archives are at
> 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
----- Original Message -----
From: Rev. John R. Shaw <vrevjrs@...>
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
> 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
Very curious to hear something opposite from the side of the WO officials,
- 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
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.
Fr. John R. Shaw
> all of us when we arelistening to the
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
> Very curious to hear something opposite from the side of the WO officials,
> Olga Mitrenina
> This mailing list's archives are at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
- 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
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,