My recent baptism experience

[Samseau]

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.”

Pretty sure you are quoting things out of order or context here. Baptisms by laymen do actually count, the famous childhood story of St. Athanasius comes to mind:

Rufinus relates a story that as Bishop Alexander stood by a window, he watched boys playing on the seashore below, imitating the ritual of Christian baptism. He sent for the children and discovered that one of the boys (Athanasius) had acted as bishop. After questioning Athanasius, Bishop Alexander informed him that the baptisms were genuine, as both the form and matter of the sacrament had been performed through the recitation of the correct words and the administration of water, and that he must not continue to do this as those baptized had not been properly catechized. He invited Athanasius and his playfellows to prepare for clerical careers.[15]

So, technically it's sinful to baptize someone as a laymen, but it can be done. Naturally, in the above story, the child Athanasius being completely unaware of what was going on, is immediately absolved from any sin, but that is why Bishop Alexander instructed him not to do it again until they had become clergy.

 

[Samseau]

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....

A heretic is a heretic; what matters is if the baptism is done correctly or not.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

A heretic is a heretic; what matters is if the baptism is done correctly or not.

I'm not exactly sure I follow completely.

I understand your point but it is very common for Russian, Antiochian, and other Orthodox denominations to Baptized previously (non-Orthodox) Baptized Christian denominations Coming into The Church.

Are you some how suggesting this practice is incorrect? Its my understanding that this is the way a majority of converts are received into The Church, and not by Chrismation. (Vs Catholics that accept a trinitarian baptism as acceptable for catechesim and conversion)

 

[Samseau]

I'm not exactly sure I follow completely.

I understand your point but it is very common for Russian, Antiochian, and other Orthodox denominations to Baptized previously (non-Orthodox) Baptized Christian denominations Coming into The Church.

Are you some how suggesting this practice is incorrect? Its my understanding that this is the way a majority of converts are received into The Church, and not by Chrismation. (Vs Catholics that accept a trinitarian baptism as acceptable for catechesim and conversion)

Were they baptized in the name of the three persons? Do those being baptized profess their faith in Christ as such? If so then it is deeply sinful to rebaptize them again. I don't know the details of your situations but I know the dogma.

Rebaptizing someone who was faithfully and properly baptized is a major sin and eligible for a defrocking. Remember, unless you were privy to the conversations of those converts being baptized, I would assume your Antiochian Priests are staying faithful to dogma.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Were they baptized in the name of the three persons? Do those being baptized profess their faith in Christ as such? If so then it is deeply sinful to rebaptize them again. I don't know the details of your situations but I know the dogma.

Rebaptizing someone who was faithfully and properly baptized is a major sin and eligible for a defrocking. Remember, unless you were privy to the conversations of those converts being baptized, I would assume your Antiochian Priests are staying faithful to dogma.

And I'll posit to you again.... That it is the practice in my, and many Antiochian parishes, that ALL converts, are baptized as the previous baptisms are not recognized as a valid sacrament.

The assumption you're making then, for "reBaptism" is that the person's baptized In the Church, then baptized a second time in The Church.

Restated another way: a non-Orthodox baptism is not recognized as a valid.

 

[Samseau]

And I'll posit to you again.... That it is the practice in my, and many Antiochian parishes, that ALL converts, are baptized as the previous baptisms are not recognized as a valid sacrament.

The assumption you're making then, for "reBaptism" is that the person's baptized In the Church, then baptized a second time in The Church.

Restated another way: a non-Orthodox baptism is not recognized as a valid.

Looks like your next Bishop will need to lay down the law.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Looks like your next Bishop will need to lay down the law.

Well, His Eminence Met Saba will be at my parish for Pascha and Holy Saturday...I'm pretty sure he's aware and approving what's going on.

Respectfully you might need to check your own understanding.


Eta:
The baptism of all converts regardless of previous non-Orthodox Baptized has been in practice here for a while at the behest of the last bishop and continued here.

I am not a priest obviously, and relatively new convert (under 5 years) but I am pretty sure that this practice is commonly accepted in Russian and Antiochian traditions, is in no way out of line with tradition.

Again, we need to be careful about prognostication on the Internet.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

My priest explained to me that, while we do not recognize the sacraments of the heterodox, reception by chrismation is The True Church completing what was incomplete and giving life to a sacrament that was ineffectual. However, my understanding is that this is economy and not ideal. Fr. Seraphim Rose was received by Chrismation and considered it far from ideal. He always baptized converts as a result.

In my case, I will be received via baptism, even though I was baptized Roman Catholic as a baby. I politely expressed my concerns to the priest about the fact that my Roman Catholic baptism involved no full immersion. He said, no problem, I can baptize you, but this is an exception we will make, and converts from heterodox Christianity are usually received by Christmation under this Church jurisdiction. To be clear, I wasn't an autist about it, and if he had refused, I would have been completely fine with being received by Chrismation. While it's ideal to be baptized, I think if a canonically ordained bishop states that I am now a member of The Church, then that would make me a member of The Church, regardless of the details.

Some people get very extreme about this matter, but I do not think that's at all the case with Fr. Peter Heers. I've listened to many hours of his podcasts/lectures in the background while I do other things, and I think he's a very reasonable man. He tells people to ultimately obey their bishops and submit to Church authority, and not to become extreme about this. People apparently see him as "the heterodox reception controversy guy" but he actually doesn't even talk about that topic much at all. The smears against him seem to come mostly from Reddit and Discord (ew), and the picture they paint of him is just not real. He's not someone who sows discord and tells people to go have meltdowns at church because the priest wants to chrismate them.