joasia wrote:The priest just didn't want to bother.
I still don't believe that he's baptised.
Joanna
Of course he did not want to bother... But your conclusion is extreme and uncanonical... Show me a canon saying those who are not immersed are not baptized. By the way including in the early church, people used to enter in a recipient and much water was poured on their head... Are you going to say they are not baptized?
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
Joasia
I was baptised in a monastery in Greece, belonging to the state church and my baptism was soooo traditional as it can be. Three immersions, catechumen prayers a week before baptism (yes this is the ancient way) and I was officially catechumen for one week:):):)
I think it depends on the priest. But if the baptism was just with sprinkling, I would not trust this mystery to be valid.
Three immersions and a orthodox bishop och priest is necessary for it to be valid.
Fortunately the bishop who baptised me was anti-ecumenist but belonging to EP.
Exact science must presently fall upon its own keen sword...from Skepsis there is a path to "second religiousness," which is the sequel and not the preface of the Culture.
Oswald Spengler
joasia wrote:Jean-Serge,
Actually, I'd like to hear the reasons why it should be considered valid. But, I'd like also like to hear from the clergy.
Thanks
Joanna
First of all, this story of valid and invalid sounds very catholic... You are falling in legalism. But let me know in which canon it is written a baptism by pouring three times is invalid? It is a Tradition as stated by Saint Basil. But if I follow your thought, since Saint Basil told we are to pray facing East, if I do not pray facing East, God does not listen to my prayer.
On the contrary, there is canon (I would have to search) saying that if a priest makes an involuntary mistake, the baptism is "good" despite this...
Give me the canon saying a baptism made pouring three times water on the head is invalid
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
Christ is in our midst!
Pouring is understood as a measure used when immersion cannot take place. From the description of the ritual, one could could canonically pursue regularization of the Baptism, ie having the rite repeated in toto with immersion not in effect effectuate another Baptism, for new calendar Baptism is valid, but to seal the rite with completeness. Such is advised when there are lay Baptisms or Baptisms where there seems to be something lacking, as it is here. Those received through economy or economic means like Chrismation, etc. should INDEED have their receptions regularized. I strongly recommend Fr. Metallinos' book, I CONFESS ONE BAPTISM, par excellance study of Baptism coming from a "new calendarist."
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky
PS No, the man is a Baptized Orthodox Christian now, and there is no doubt of that in my mind, but for propriety's sake, regularization is in order.
Nikodemus wrote:Jean Serge
If you bother to read the apostolic CANONS, you will find that three immersions IS NECESSARY
The canon 50 states condemns those who baptize with ONLY ONE IMMERSION. It has nothing to do with pouring water is no recipient is avalaibale...
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
