Orthodox Baptism: "Economia" and "Akriveia" - Archbishop Alexander (Golitzin)

[@johnramsey5651]

St Basil is clear that the Trinitarian form of baptism does not in itself forbid reception by baptism (cf. his Canon 47), so the last point of the Archbishop is contrary to St Basil the Great. Archbishop Alexander needs to contradict St Cyprian to justify his position. This is a huge red flag because the teaching of St Cyprian was affirmed by the Council of Trullo with the only qualification that baptising all converts was only practised there; the council did not condemn the practice and affirming the canon affirmed the doctrine behind the practice, even if not applying the practice universally. I also cannot see how to reconcile Archbishop Alexander's position with the Apostolic Canons for which baptism outside the Church, that is by one who is not a priest of the Church (or in necessity a layman in communion and good standing in the Church), is pollution. The Eastern Churches were baptising "baptised" Latins well before the Schism and continued afterwards also due to some Latins only having a single immersion. This was a common issue of complaint, so the history is also not a simple as he portrays. Most of concern is that the reason for his opinion is that the RCs complained that baptising them means that they are not Christian. This opinion appears to be open to being made for the sake of ecumenical dialogue rather than the teaching and practice of the Fathers. The teaching of St Augustine about the effect of baptism outside the Church is not affirmed by the Fathers other than an indirect reference in one canon of Carthage. The order to baptise all of many heretics, excepting five to six groups of about 60-100 at the time, without qualification as to the form of baptism demonstrates that the Fathers did not think that baptism outside the Church could not be repeated per se as Archbishop Alexander claims. St Leo the Great, while enforcing the economy (as Fr Alexander defines) in Rome, states that what is received is the bare form (cf. St Ncodemus the Hagiorite) that is completed on reception. This was also the position of St Gregory the Great. St Basil the Great insists on at least anointing with Chrism, as too St Cyprian, which implies that reception of the Holy Spirit not previously had in heresy or schism. He who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's as St Paul teaches, so thus outside the Church fully. Perhaps the Archbishop is correct that it is better to not rebaptise RCs, but the reasoning provided falls far short of a reading that is even best fit for the evidence let alone ecclesiology. The primary issue is not the practice of not repeating a legitimate form of baptism, although what that form is is also at issue, but whether those baptised apart from the recognised bishops of the Church are actually regenerated and clothed in Christ, that is members of the Body of Christ. The evidence from most sources is that this is not the case. That is RCs as being heretics according to the Council of Constantinople AD1484, that Archbishop Alexander uses to support not baptising, are not baptised into the Orthodox Faith of the Trinity and so are truly apart from the Church. They are properly, according to St Athanasius the Great, not even to be called Christians. A standing problem is taking a modern secular or even RC definition of Christian and assuming that RCs and Protestants are actually Christians by this definition. By the Orthodox definition, if they are truly Christians then they are truly the Church and we would not be receiving them into the Orthodox Church without condemning ourselves as schismatics for doing so, other than accepting them immediately to communion when visiting Greece for example. Also, all Orthodox Churches in RC or Protestant countries are ethnophyletist schismatics and sound leave immediately. Clearly Orthodox Bishops do not really believe that the Papacy is a valid hierarchy of the Church nor Anglicans or Lutherans or other Protestant leaders, so they should stop these ecumenist games and be honest that they are either schismatics or RCs and Protestants are not really Christians.

[@barrycavett8977]

Forgive me, as I am newly converted, but "if they were baptised by water in the name of the trinity...they are of the Church" is a difficult teaching to accept. 1) This makes it seem like magic/reduce it to a formula (just do the rite and it is efficacious) which then I ask, what other rites can be performed outside of the Church then? 2) Is not being brought up in the faith part of that Baptism? The immersion rite is the entrance into that community of that faith. E.g. how could a muslim baptise someone into the Church? Or how could I grant membership to a body of which I am not a part of? Could 3) Lastly, then in what sense would one even need to become Orthodox? Would this not lead to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism? Genuinely curious to these questions. Thank you to any who take the time to read and respond!

[@campomambo]

I think the comment about magic is very spot on. There is nothing about the motions of themselves that confers salvation. It’s only by participation with the divine energies that you can be born again. Since Christ is found in the Church, that is where the renewal of baptism actually takes place. If it was simply the motions that mattered, that would be salvation by works. But it’s by the grace that is found in the mysteries that we are saved. However, it’s also true that we don’t know in eternity who is of the church. Perhaps, we can say those who with all sincerity but in ignorance joined a false church are of the church because they eventually came to the one Orthodox Church. It doesn’t seem to me to be far off from the idea of baptism of desire. Ultimately, it’s not as if being in the church itself is sufficient to get to heaven. We must strive to unite ourselves to Christ, as well. In the end, we can only leave those outside the church up to the judgment of God.

[@fr.davidwooten1650]

The teaching of the Church throughout the centuries has been varied, in the sense that the bishops in each place and time had to deal with varied types of heterodox that they were receiving into the Church. Nevertheless, the 2nd Ecumenical Council and St. Basil both put forth canons in the 300s that stated that some would be received by baptism, and others would not be received through baptism, but rather chrismation. Others would not receive either of these, but would simply be received to communion after confession of heresy. So the idea that "all were received by baptism" is just patently false. Why, then, were some baptisms "accepted" or seen as "valid"? First of all, you have to know what the Church is doing when it receives someone by chrismation and not by baptism. It is not saying that the baptism of the person is "just fine" or "just as good as an Orthodox baptism." St. Basil the Great said that heterodox groups may nonetheless possess rites and sacramental "leftovers" (if you will) that are still seen as "of the Church," even though they were not IN the Church when the rite was performed. Thus, chrismation will "finish off" -- or, fill to completion -- the baptismal form in their former confession. That baptism which they underwent, in other words, is only "sufficient" INSOFAR AS IT EVENTUALLY LEADS THE PERSON TO THE CHURCH. Upon coming to the Church, it is determined that SOME work of the Holy Spirit was begun there (it isn't an all-or-nothing thing, but rather one of partial vs. fullness), and it is finished and fulfilled in the only place that fullness can be found: The Orthodox Church.

[@rayfulmer5146]

@@fr.davidwooten1650 I can't like that enough times.

[@3devdas777]

@@barrycavett8977 it is true that none of the Councils or Fathers taught that those baptized outside of the one Church are somehow “of the Church” or had already received the Holy Spirit in some measure through sacraments performed outside of the Church. This is a novel teaching. St. Basil’s canon 1 which was adopted universally in the Church states that when priests and bishops of the Church break off in schism they lose the grace of the Holy Spirit and cannot bestow the Holy Spirit on others through baptism. How much more so for those outside of the Church who were never made priests and bishops of the Church! The ancient canons that allowed some specifically named heretics to be received by chrismation in ancient times did so only if they had already received the correct form of baptism in 3 full immersions in the name of the Trinity but the same canons nevertheless reiterated that “all other” heretics should be baptized since receiving all by baptism is the standard established by the Apostolic canons. The reasons why certain heretics were allowed to be received by chrismation no longer apply to the reception of heretics today. The book “On the Reception of the Heterodox” covers all of this in detail.

[@iplyrunescape305]

Father Josiah put it something like this: (going off of memory but it makes sense to me) "Baptism in the name of the Trinity outside of the Church is like plugging into the right wall socket, but you get no power. Chrismation/confession into the Church is the next step what makes the socket draw power into the plug."

[@morganmitchell-p2w]

@lempirajr 2 hours ago Which is the best book to read that embraces the most well spread orthodox praxis (as in this video) concerning the recieving of non orthodox Christians into the Church?

[@andys3035]

I was recently received into the Greek Orthodox Church by baptism and chrismation. My priest basically said the choice was between me and God. I was baptized in the Holy Trinity as an evangelical but I had no idea when exactly that was. I sometimes question if I did the right thing not trusting God the first time. I simply want to be obedient and receive the fullness of God's grace in these sacraments.

[@johnramsey5651]

You did the right thing.

[@andys3035]

@johnramsey5651 thank you

[@scoon2117]

Alright i just got to start studying ancient greek.

[@strikeoneboxing4384]

How can they be baptized if the one thats baptizing them is not in the church? By which authority? If the mysteries of the heretics nd schismatics have grace then why bother becoming orthodox? This is undermining the importance of having a correct orthodox doctrine

[@rayfulmer5146]

Well St. Basil didn't even think that we should re-Baptize Arians and Apollinarians, so I think that it would be a rigorist stretch to say that Catholics should be. They are schismatics, not evil anti-Christian Satan worshippers. The mysteries aren't magic spells that work or fail. The Holy Spirit doesn't promise canonical Orthodoxy to do nothing outside of its ecclesial structures. To the extent that their Baptismal prayers and forms are Trinitarian, then those aspects of their faith are solid. As for why become Orthodox - because it's true? Why would you join a less full version of the faith if a fuller version exists?

[@mikebaker2436]

The answer to your first 2 questions is clearly stated starting at 6:15.

[@nickys3225]

My friend, the Church’s canonical tradition states that baptized Trinitarian Christians-Father, Son, Holy Spirit-can be received without being rebaptized because even if their baptisms were performed outside of the Church, they were nonetheless “born into Christ” by being baptized (the Lord’s command). They may not have belonged to *the Church* but by being baptized in the name of the Trinity, they are still in Christ by virtue of their baptism. There is also no need for a second baptism (when entering the Church as a heterodox Christian who had a trinitarian baptism) because the Creed confesses only *one* baptism. I hope this helps.

[@johnramsey5651]

@@nickys3225 Please quote or reference one can that states this. What do you mean by being baptised in the "name of the Trinity"? What does that look like?

[@3devdas777]

Abp. Alexander here reiterates a lot of commonly repeated misinformation about this issue. All of these issues are addressed in detail in the book “On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria” from Uncut Mountain Press. The book shows how the Orthodox Church received and ratified St. Cyprian’s canon and the Apostolic Canons as well as Canon 1 of St. Basil, all of which affirm that there are no true or grace-filled sacraments outside of the unity of the one Church. The 1484 Council which did not require Latins to be received by baptism was actually a deviation from the traditional practice of baptizing the Latins after the Schism, and even the Greeks continued baptizing Latins after this council. The book also shows how Latins and Protestants were received by baptism in Russia until 1667 when the traditional practice was discarded largely due to the influence of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch who was loyal to the Pope of Rome. Again, all of these topics are dealt with at length in the book mentioned above including the issue of economia, the teaching of the Kollyvades Fathers, all of the relevant canons pertaining to the reception of converts, etc.

[@Icapelliperte]

Who consecrated you to the episcopate? Pretty ballsy to correct a bishop of the Church.

[@rowangoldsmith1269]

last time i checked you and fr peter heers aren't archbishop of two diocese

[@lornadoone8887]

Fr. Peter and even holy monks can be mistaken. I’ve seen evidence this book is not a reflection of the mind of the Church, however sincerely held or well intentioned.

[@panokostouros7609]

@Icapelliperte There were CIA and KGB bishops ordained as well, so what is your point? Are you suggesting we dissociate and blindly follow them without a healthy degree of push-back in such precious matters as being properly reborn in Christ? Would any sane parent not actively struggle to ensure the healthy development and birth of their child, regardless of what the doctors say, even when correct? The Episcopacy, the laying on of hands and the "Apostolic succession" represent both the imparting and continued upholding of the Faith, which is not automatically guaranteed in and of itself. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to pray for bishops who "rightly divide the word of truth" and Christ would not have commanded His disciples to "do what they say, but don't do as they do" when engaging with the twisted rabbis in synagogue. This reminds me of the preacher monk Saint Pappoulakos, whose witness and spiritual work in 19th century Greece was so influential that he reduced the crime rate to 0 among other miracles and the response of the official hierarchs to this living Saint was exactly the same as the one you've put forward here: *"What are your credentials?"* Thank you for the textbook deflection tactics used to avoid the argument and the matter at hand. This fallacy of authority is a classic favorite among Papists as well as the bureaucratically minded in general. It's often appealed to out of "humility" and "respect", but it is really an indication of a cowardly mind looking to avoid any responsibility or accountability to the Truth as testified by their conscience. This is unacceptable and insulting to your own dignity. Along with a conscience, God gave you a mind, an intellect, with which to think logically and act rationally, and a heart with which to offer fervent prayers, and in times of widespread delusion, it may be you as a layperson that God will summon through your conscience to restore the family of Christ's Church into healthfulness and good working order. I reckon that many of those Hetrerodox's adamant refusal to accept full "immersion" in the initiatory rite is a reflection of their refusal to be fully "immersed" in the love of Christ in many other aspects of his or her life (and I am also guilty of this in other ways).

[@panokostouros7609]

​@@lornadoone8887 I'd like to know what they got wrong, please.

[@mikemacdavy8086]

Everyone entering the Orthodox Church should receive both baptism and chrismation. That is the teaching of the Fathers. Period.

[@kianis1206]

@@mikemacdavy8086 the fathers disagree on many topics ..That’s why the ecumenical councils are authoritative above everything else because they operate conciliarly and according to the council of trullo which is ecumenical there are some who can enter the church without rebaptism..Such as confession and chrismation..

[@pamarks]

Its not though. St Basil did not teach this. Read the document he is talking sbout.

[@richardwagner-ky9mz]

Sorry as a convert i have to disagree. Archbishop Alexandee explains the reason why. Period.

[@fr.davidwooten1650]

No, not "period." The teaching of the Church throughout the centuries has been varied, in the sense that the bishops in each place and time had to deal with varied types of heterodox that they were receiving into the Church. The 2nd Ecumenical Council and St. Basil both put forth canons in the 300s that stated that some would be received by baptism, and others would not be received through baptism, but rather chrismation. Others would not receive either of these, but would simply be received to communion after confession of heresy. So the idea that "all were received by baptism" is just patently false. Why, then, were some baptisms "accepted" or seen as "valid"? First of all, you have to know what the Church is doing when it receives someone by chrismation and not by baptism. It is not saying that the baptism of the person is "just fine" or "just as good as an Orthodox baptism." St. Basil the Great said that heterodox groups may nonetheless possess rites and sacramental "leftovers" (if you will) that are still seen as "of the Church," even though they were not IN the Church when the rite was performed. Thus, chrismation will "finish off" -- or, fill to completion -- the baptismal form in their former confession. That baptism which they underwent, in other words, is only "sufficient" INSOFAR AS IT EVENTUALLY LEADS THE PERSON TO THE CHURCH. Upon coming to the Church, it is determined that SOME work of the Holy Spirit was begun there (it isn't an all-or-nothing thing, but rather one of partial vs. fullness), and it is finished and fulfilled in the only place that fullness can be found: The Orthodox Church.

[@mikemacdavy8086]

"Should" - the word is quite important. There is only one Church, the Orthodox Church. Outside there in no salvation and, hence, there are no sacraments. In this age of Darkness, we don't need any more "spin" on the subject.