Father Peter Heers once shared a book I think by Gregory Palamas its called the reception of the heterodox and it basically states that the hetorodox must be baptised in 3 submersions into the Trinity it must be done right.
My recent baptism experience
- Thread starter GoodShepherd
- Start date
My priest has also met him before not sure if it was in USA or Mt Athos but it was still when he was still training, I will ask my priest tomorrow in person if he knows anything about this
I'm sorry you have chosen to double down on your defamation and dismissiveness. That's on your own conscience. Just to clarify, you are not using the word ordination correctly. A bishop ordains a man to the priesthood and that man remains a priest unless he is defrocked. Priests who move location don't get reordained every time or have periods where they are not priests anymore because they are awaiting their next ordination. Ordination is a once in a lifetime thing, just like monastic tonsure. Father Peter quite patently hasn't been defrocked, nor is there any move to defrock him. You are mixing ordination up with canonical transfer from one diocese to another.
Last edited:
This is what my priest taught me too. He baptizes everyone, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist...doesn't matter.
Yep, this smells like heresy. Right in the creed, "I believe in one baptism..."
And I know Priests who speak extremely lowly of him. What's your point? I know Priests with huge ranges of views, with all due respect, how many Priests do you know? One Priest doesn't count for much. Fundamentally, Bishops are what count.
I'm not sure this is true, and I will add it to the list of things to ask my Bishop next time I see him.
[I'll l0ll0
I know 4 priests at my church, and several others as I went to 3 churches before finding the one I attend now. That's enough to know it's within an Overton window.
I'm aware that 1 priest is only 1 voice, but I look at the aggregate of their compatriots and cohorts to determine the validity of their commentary. Fr. Trenham seems to have no issues associating with Fr. Heers either.
I understand you point about being under a bishop... But as I stated, it's clear that this is a political thing and our speculation turns into Gossip over matters we really don't have full visibility on. I also don't think your correct about the ordination statement.
I read that like 3 dunks, not 3 separate baptisms. Doesn't seem off, I was dunked 3 times, one baptism. Unless I'm missing something, that's not controversial.
I know 4 priests at my church, and several others as I went to 3 churches before finding the one I attend now. That's enough to know it's within an Overton window.
I'm aware that 1 priest is only 1 voice, but I look at the aggregate of their compatriots and cohorts to determine the validity of their commentary. Fr. Trenham seems to have no issues associating with Fr. Heers either.
I understand you point about being under a bishop... But as I stated, it's clear that this is a political thing and our speculation turns into Gossip over matters we really don't have full visibility on. I also don't think your correct about the ordination statement.
This is the practice of Mount Athos and by ROCOR, perhaps other jurisdictions also. As far as I am aware, at least one Antiochian Bishop in Britain has threatened to defrock any priest who baptises someone who has already received heterodox sprinkling or whatever. This may explain Samseau’s hostility toward Fr Heers if he is Antiochian
This whole situation could really do with a pan-Orthodox clarification and agreement at council. There’s a lot of mixed messages and it’s caused a lot of distress for inquirers and catechumens, and orthodox received by chrismation etc
I'm Antiochian... So maybe this is a local thing. Our Bishop clearly is in favor of what we're doing here.
Yep, looks like it. We've got disagreement among Bishops, looks like Saba will have to address this.
So, imagine if someone is on the deathbed, and wants to convert. They are too old and weak to make it to a bathtub, let alone a river. All you can do to baptize them is a small cup of water on their head.
Is that not a valid baptism? Will you deny that Christ has not saved that person? (this is word for word what my Bishop taught me)
You have an issue with the creed too? One kind of baptism? The Creed is a good litmus test if someone believes anything thats contrary to the creeds its a sign they are in error, the crees it very important
I would say that is a valid baptism. I think Fr Peter would too, I don’t think his point is to say “everyone who was received via chrismation is not Orthodox” but rather that, in these modern times, we absolutely should be uniform in our reception of converts. Though admittedly, his position on this sometimes seems hard to clarify. I would say if you were received via Chrismation with the blessing of your bishop, and you’ve been communing and living the Orthodox life then you need not doubt your Orthodoxy, but going forward, we should be baptising everyone. But my opinion isn’t important.
For what it’s worth, in my diocese I have seen people received via Chrismation, since the past year or so everyone is baptised, but those who were chrismated are still considered fully Orthodox and are not “re-baptised.” I think this is a reasonable course-correction.
On the contrary, I am asserting the Creed fully. ONE Baptism. As in ONCE. Priests who insist on rebaptizing are actually pushing heresy. The report of the Antiochian Bishop threating to defrock anyone who tries to rebaptize someone makes sense to me. See, for example:
This is a good Bishop. Adherence to the creed is not up for debate. It doesn't matter if someone has had a lousy baptism or not, there is ONE baptism.
benjamin
Orthodox
Without getting involved in a debate about Fr. Peter...
I was "baptized" in a Lutheran church in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" by having water poured over my head out of a half a clam shell.
I didn't think it felt like a real baptism from the beginning, before I was even exposed to Orthodoxy, but more like a blessing. Not long after I had some experiences at the same Lutheran church that confirmed how I felt. My priest agreed with me. From the beginning he was more than happy to baptize me and he is hardly a rigorist, many converts at my parish have been received via Chrismation.
If I had to guess it's probably decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration not just the form but the orientation or mental and spiritual state of the person who received it. If someone like me was received via Chrismation but still had doubts about their so-called heterodox baptism that may not be a spiritually healthy place to be.
I was "baptized" in a Lutheran church in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" by having water poured over my head out of a half a clam shell.
I didn't think it felt like a real baptism from the beginning, before I was even exposed to Orthodoxy, but more like a blessing. Not long after I had some experiences at the same Lutheran church that confirmed how I felt. My priest agreed with me. From the beginning he was more than happy to baptize me and he is hardly a rigorist, many converts at my parish have been received via Chrismation.
If I had to guess it's probably decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration not just the form but the orientation or mental and spiritual state of the person who received it. If someone like me was received via Chrismation but still had doubts about their so-called heterodox baptism that may not be a spiritually healthy place to be.
That would apply if you already in the Orthodox faith, a baptism outside the church is not a baptism even though it might look similar, Mormons have baptism, thats not what its say thats why the book the reception of the Orthodox must be important, I havent read it yet but Iv seen quotes from it regarding baptism, I would rather be safe than sorry on this issue
I felt the same I was always not really satisfied with my Protestant baptism even years before I heard of Orthodoxy so Im so glad I got the opportunity to get baptised properly, I no longer have that doubt in my concience anymore, but I agree with Samseau that once we are baptised properly then its wrong to go and get baptised a 2nd time, so for the rest of my life I will never need to get baptised again
No brother, see: https://christisking.cc/threads/my-recent-baptism-experience.803/#post-36256
Even Baptisms by heretics count, as long as it's in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mormons and many Prots do not do this, so it's not a baptism for them.
Yes those are the ones Im talking about who didnt do it in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, Im aware that even if just dunked once that it can still be valid as long as it was done into the Holy Trinity
I was baptized as a baby into the Lutheran church. My mom became convinced that infant baptism was a heresy when she went through a televangelist-inspired charismatic phase in the 80’s. So, I had what she thought was a corrective baptism when I could make a profession of my faith once I got older. My mother was out of the charismatic phase by that time and we were in a non-denominational church by then.
When I became a catechumen my priest said that I didn’t need to get baptized again as long as I could give him a certificate of baptism indicating that it was a triune baptism. I was able to find my certificate from the Lutheran church and it states that I received a “Christian Baptism.”
When my wife became a catechumen she was able to get in touch with the evangelical pastor who baptized her and he wrote a document declaring that she was baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
There are some charismatic churches that baptize “in Jesus’ name.”
When I became a catechumen my priest said that I didn’t need to get baptized again as long as I could give him a certificate of baptism indicating that it was a triune baptism. I was able to find my certificate from the Lutheran church and it states that I received a “Christian Baptism.”
When my wife became a catechumen she was able to get in touch with the evangelical pastor who baptized her and he wrote a document declaring that she was baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
There are some charismatic churches that baptize “in Jesus’ name.”
Kingdom
Orthodox
What is common for the statements from that Russian faith dot com link is that we accept baptism if it is done in the name of the Holy Trinity, in accordance with the Trinitarian dogma, "and with triune immersion and emersion according to its Apostolic and patristic form." (Fr. George Metallinos, I Confess One Baptism (Mt. Athos: St. Paul’s Monastery, 1994)
Catholics have changed the Trinitarian dogma by adding the filioque part, along with the baptismal customs, so (expect in special cases as dictated by economia), in most cases, we do not accept their baptism, nor their other sacraments, which also apllies to the Protestants, as is clear from the practice of the Church.
And the warnings that say that baptism should not be repeated refer to baptisms that we recognize (in today's case it would refer to Old Calendarists or Russian Old Believers) and not to baptisms that we do not recognize.
"The 46th and 47th Apostolic Canons declare, respectively: “We order that a bishop or presbyter that recognized the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be defrocked. For what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? (c.f. 2 Cor. 6:15) and “If a bishop or presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize someone that had been polluted by the impious, let him be defrocked, on the grounds that he is mocking the cross and death of the Lord, and fails to distinguish priests from false priests.”
Also, "St. Basil the Great agrees with St. Cyprian of Carthage that with schism those who depart from the Church no longer possess the grace of the Holy Spirit, the priestly gift of grace is discontinued, and the transmission of the priesthood is obstructed. Without the transmission of the priesthood, apostolic succession, those baptized by them are considered to be baptized by laymen. Consequently, “they have neither authority to baptize nor to ordain.”
One of the common mistakes is to think that the Orthodox Church is yet another Protestant denomination where everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, even if it contradicts the established practice of the Church. And that can be a very dangerous thing.
At the time of Saint Basil, were there multiple other denominations? I mean you might have had a few heretics here and there which were obviously condemned... But it's not necessarily an apple to apple comparison.
This kinda seems like arguing out of context to me....