I actually don’t think this is such a big deal. I’ve heard of Orthodox being baptised by sprinkling – for instance, one small infant who was sprinkled because it was so cold one Romanian winter that they could barely prevent the font from freezing over! It’s just that we still hold to the original norm, whereas Roman Catholicism seems to have changed the economic exception into the norm.

Ideally everyone should be baptised by triple immersion where possible, but sprinkling would not make a baptism invalid (although we don’t accept any heterodox baptisms as valid in and of themselves). I myself was sprinkled as an infant in an Anglican church but brought up Lutheran (weird Protestant ecclesiology) but was accepted into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation alone, which is only done if the original baptism was [i:hcdcyf0y]valid in form[/i:hcdcyf0y]. It is easy to make too much out of this issue.

James

[quote:157xb1yf]Ok my question now is:

If there is enough water and the right conditions exist, is sprinkling valid?

It seems that both you and Ted agree that under CERTAIN conditions it is ok and valid. Unless I misunderstood. Let me know.

~Victor[/quote:157xb1yf]

I would say that, if that were the case, the baptism would still be valid (i.e. it shouldn’t be repeated) but I’d question the priest’s Orthodoxy (actually his Bishop’s really). Sprinkling is [i:157xb1yf]a[/i:157xb1yf] valid form to be used [i:157xb1yf]only according to economy[/i:157xb1yf] when strict adherence to the full form is impossible. To do anything else would be to fly in the face of the Tradition and canons of the Church. Personally, however, I don’t think this is an issue that would cause problems re. unification. It’s somewhere not far above beardless priests in the issue ranking in my eyes and I could happily accept its continued existence in the See of Rome of a reunified Church – just don’t expect me to go along with it personally.

James

I think I made it clear above that Immersion is the “full” expression. But neither of you have answered my question that I posed above.

[quote:37ty1ebz]As catholics we agree that IMMERSION is the full expression of baptism, but is IMMERSION the center of the sacrament? Or is it the water?[/quote:37ty1ebz]

Thanks.

~Victor

Jon,

[quote:154gqks3]here’s my question – is it really that smart to dunk babies fully under water?[/quote:154gqks3]

The Holy Apostles did it. A few hundred million Orthodox still do it… I’ve heard this argument before. It’s really, really reaching.

Not to mention the fact that infants [b:154gqks3]instinctively know how to hold their breath[/b:154gqks3]. This is why you’ll see mothers able to take their infant swimming – the little tyke can’t walk, but knows to hold his breath if he goes under. In fact, it seems they only [i:154gqks3]forget this[/i:154gqks3] as they get older.

Besides, have you ever seen an infant Baptized properly? He won’t be under any more than a few seconds.

Victor,

[quote:bzgyba23]As catholics we agree that IMMERSION is the full expression of baptism, but is IMMERSION the center of the sacrament? Or is it the water?[/quote:bzgyba23]

The Holy Mystery of Baptism involves three immersions – “pouring” is not an immersion. Thus in the strictest sense, it’s not a Baptism properly speaking.

[i:bzgyba23]However[/i:bzgyba23], in desperate circumstances, where it’s either do it this way, or not at all, it can be accepted by [i:bzgyba23]economia[/i:bzgyba23] – the condescension of the Church, reflecting God’s leniency upon struggling sinners. This leniency has always existed in this matter, and so it continues.

This though, is a different matter than what the Roman Catholics do, for no good reason whatsoever save perhaps some form of thrift/minimalism. Also, there is the other question of “heretical baptism” – the difference between the liberality of discipline as experienced [i:bzgyba23]within the Church[/i:bzgyba23], and how such liberalities are regarded when excercised beyond Her boundaries.

Strictly speaking, all non-Orthodox Baptisms that are “accepted” are so taken “by economy”, not only their own merits as “equivelents” to Orthodox Mysteries. But in the case of western Christians who use “pouring”, you’ll find that there are basically two disciplines on this topic in Orthodoxy – one which says “forget it, we’ll only receive you by canonical Baptism” (typically Greek, at least outside of North America) and “we can accept this too, economically” (typically “Russian”, with some notable exceptions.) In the end that’s not a dogmatic question though, but a matter of where a local Church (or Churches) pastorally decides to “draw a line in the sand” as to how far they’ll bend so as to avoid scandalizing potential converts (who historically are not always savvy to the subtleties of these matters.)

When push comes to shove, the Orthodox Church [i:bzgyba23]can[/i:bzgyba23] (and in certain circumstances [i:bzgyba23]has[/i:bzgyba23]) receive any and all converts (regardless of background) via Holy Baptism, since this Baptism is the only one She recognizes as lawful and hence undoubtedly grace filled. This isn’t the Roman Catholic position, but that is irrelevent to what Orthodox Christians do and think.

Augustine, I can’t see where you answered my question. Did I miss something? ” title=”Confused” />

~Victor

[quote:3qi95ijq]I can’t speak for him, but I think he means that since by etymology baptism means immerse then that is what is most important.[/quote:3qi95ijq]

Is this what you meant Augustine?

~Victor

Victor,

[quote:3ocwxuwn]Augustine, I can’t seem to get you to clearly answer my question. I don’t really see that we disagree in Baptism.[/quote:3ocwxuwn]

I think what’s happening is that I’m talking past you. That’s not to say you’re a dummy – rather, I’m not taking care to explain fully a way of thinking alien to that common to both Roman Catholics and Protestants.

If I said “baptism by pouring isn’t a proper baptism”, the RC-Protestant way of looking at things would be to understand this in such a way as to make the reception of persons coming Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc. into Orthodoxy without an Orthodox Baptism seem utterly incomprehensible. This is why I’ve taken pains to explain things as I have, and not offer the pat answer you’ve asked for – obviously I still wasn’t clear enough.

It’s an example of a particularly extreme form of [i:3ocwxuwn]ekonomia[/i:3ocwxuwn] (“economy”), when the Orthodox Church receives persosn from heterodox without canonical Baptism, who had been “baptized” in a manner which does not involve three immersions. While some manner of economy was common in receiving converts from schisms and heresies where at least the basic, proper form of baptism was observed (such as is common still amongst the anti-Chalcedonians, or as far as I’m aware, the Nestorians), it’s a particularly extreme leniency with most western converts because a “baptism by pouring” isn’t really a baptism (the word “baptizo” meaning to coat or dip, like what happens when someone is overwhelmed with water or when one plunges fabric into a vat of dye.)

This is why it’s only in North America (for missionary reasons) that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (which is under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch) practices extreme economy – where as if you were to go to Greece (which while autonomous, and under the Archbishop of Athens, shares the same heritage as the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and was once under it’s presidency and synodal adminstration), or to the Holy Mountain (Mt.Athos – which is still very much under the supervision of the Ecumenical Patriarch), such western converts would be almost always Baptized. This is precisely what happened (relatively) recently when a group of (I believe they were French) Benedictines were received into Orthodoxy under the EP.

As for the “Agreed Statement”, the Orthodox participation in this is not authoritative, but academic and this is precisely why they are a “consultation.” Suffice it to say, the way the document was phrased (and it’s incredibly innaccurate and dismissive approach to Fathers, ancient and new, who disagree with it’s essentially Roman Catholic sacramental theology) was received very badly by many Orthodox clergy and hierarchs who became aware of it, in particular those outside of North America.

“Baptismal Theology”[/url:3ocwxuwn] by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos (whose credentials as a scholar, spiritual author, and pastor of souls are well known by Orthodox Chrsitians throughout the world) is a response specifically to this document. The entire way it (the “Agreed Statement”) envisions sacramental “validity” is alien to the relevent canons on this topic, and to the spiritual authorities who spoke in any depth on the matter (St.Cyprian, St.Basil the Great, St.Firmillian, St.Nikodemos the Hagiorite, etc., etc.)

Either through deception or simple ignorance, the authors of the “Orthodox side” of this agreed statement simply misrepresent the Church’s teaching on this topic, and many of the so called inconsistancies they think they’re working around are in fact the evidence in and of themself that their view is not normative to Orthodoxy, but has the smell of something gone sour. Part of the problem is that the document eminated from St.Vladimir’s Theological Seminary in New York, which is something of a mixed bag in terms of where it’s coming from (basically, theological modernism “Orthodox style”, which probably for most westerners looks downright “conservative.”)