I am Mr. G. Z. Thompson. You may call me Mr. Thompson.
I forgot to write down attendance figures for the liturgy. It's one of the things the altar boy has to do. Mea culpa, I'll write it down next week. There were 43 present, 31 communicants. The count of those present may be a little low, it's hard to see all the little kids and infants when you're peeking over the deacon's doors, but you don't miss them at communion. Yes, we're small. And, yes, there's only one liturgy.
posted by Mr. G. Z. T. @ 23.5.05
I am a statistician. I am an Orthodox Christian. I play chess sometimes. I read epics. I am a some kind of fool. I would like to become a saint. I battle cosmic evil and seek justice. Please forgive me, I am not a very kind man or a very patient man. I'm working on it. If you really want to contact me, I suggest e-mailing me at gzt at whatever the domain is for the University of Chicago.
I am a young fool. Please be nice to me.
5 Comments:
Geoff,
I checked the "one baptism" link and it raised a question. The Catholic Church recognizes valid Trinitarian baptism from other denominations (so a convert to the Church from, say, Lutheranism, would be confirmed but not baptized again). The link seems to imply that the Orthodox Church does not do the same. When people already baptized in other denominations enter the Orthodox Church, what is the process?
(And no, I'm not asking this because I'm thinking of converting. But you knew that.)
There are two schools of thought: the one which seems to be supported by the liturgical tradition of the Church and which is most common in America and most other places in the world is that a Trinitarian baptism will be recognized as such and the convert will be chrismated [confirmed], though the Slavic service books tend to support the possibility of confirmed Catholics being admitted by only confession. A baptism would only be performed on somebody previously baptized if there were legitimate doubts as to the proper form of baptism being applied, and then it'd be just like the old Catholic practice of conditional baptism. Bishop +DEMETRI of the Diocese of the South, for instance, will defrock and excommunicate any priest who baptizes anybody who has previously been baptized. Other bishops in America have not gone that far, but the orders are generally the same. The other school of thought, which is more common among the uneducated, the "ubertraditionalists"-falsely-so-called, and the schismatics, would claim that the sacraments of those outside the Orthodox Church are possibly devoid of grace because they are heretics and therefore, if converts are received only by chrismation, it is by economy only [that is, they believe the bishop could just as well decide the contrary], where the graceless form of baptism is filled with grace by chrismation. Their preferred method of reception would be baptism and chrismation because of the possibility that baptisms outside the visible bounds of the Church are not true baptisms. The monks of Mt. Athos, "ubertraditionalists"-falsely-so-called, dogmatic Old Calendarists, overzealous Protestant converts, and some clergy in the backwoods of the Old Country who don't know better hold to this view. Some, generally only schismatics and heretics, go so far as to say that it is a certainty and not only a possibility. Only the unregenerate and demonically posessed could possibly believe such nonsense.
In between the two is the practice of doing conditional baptisms for all converts, as was, IIRC, the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church's practice, even though everybody knew [viz] that an Anglican convert probably did not have any defect of form in his baptism. The difference between the "ultratraditionalists" [etc] and these is that the "ultratraditionalists"-falsely-so-called don't advocate it because they may not have been baptized properly, but because they doubt whether the grace of God functions outside the visible bounds of the Church. See St. Cyprian of Carthage for more info.
Just FYI, the sorts who demand the baptism of all converts are the sorts who accuse the "liberals" of the "panheresy of ecumenism", which become, in my world, "liberalists" and "ecumenical panheresy".
I say they are 'falsely-so-called' because their position entails an abandonment of the rubrics handed down to us. The old service books clearly state what we are to do to converts, the theologians aren't always so clear, but the practices of the Church are. And even here they theologians really are pretty clear.
By the way, folks, when you mean Trinitarian Baptism, I assume you mean baptism in a Church that holds to the Niceno-Constantipolitan understanding of the Trinity and baptizes with a Trinitarian formula rather than those simply baptized with a Trinitarian formula (such as Mormons). Or do you think it's more complicated than that?
It's more complicated than that, because holding to a Niceno-Constantinopolitan understanding of the Trinity, that would mean only Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox baptisms would be recognized, since everybody else believes the heretical innovation of the Filioque. Actually, that does come up in some of the "ubertraditionalist" arguments. But, yes, caelius is right if you ignore that. Mormons are always baptised.
Post a Comment
<< Home