New calendar Greek baptism

Jean-Serge · Post by **Jean-Serge** » Thu 20 October 2005 11:59 am

Yes Iagree the priest should have acquire the infrastructure previously... But the mysteries are above the priest's laziness or lack of motivation...

In Russia, Serbia and many other traditionnal Orthodox countries, in the 20th century in many places there were no longer baptism through immersion. I ask you the question : where those people Orthodox according to you?

Other question : what is a koumbari?

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Thu 20 October 2005 12:00 pm

Orthodox6,

It's okay. We were talking about the koumbari only.

Koumbara - maid of honor
Koumbaro - best man
Koumbari - plural of both

As to your question Jean-Serge. I don't know.

Edward · Post by **Edward** » Thu 20 October 2005 2:47 pm

First, my apologies for the "Greek" statement. It was made out of frustration and was inappropriate. Yes, I live in Moscow (although I am writing now from Belgrade, Serbia) but I am American and will be returning to the United States soon, November 6 to be exact.

I agree that heterdox should be received into the church by baptism. It would be one thing if the Latins and the Protestants maintained the form, but they have pretty much lost that.

The chrismation issue has been a problem since the 19th century. The Russian Church was receiving converts by chrismation. Saints Alexandra and Elizabeth came to Orthodoxy from Lutheranism and were chrismated. Now, it could be argued that they were baptised by their martyric deaths. But the point is that the Russian Church chrismated them.

Also, Uniates were usually received into the church by chrismation, but sometimes just by confession of faith.

Even the Russian Church Abroad did not make baptism their standard for received heterdox christians. Father Seraphim Rose was chrismated, as ROCOR accepted his Presbyterian Baptism.

So, yes, Latins and Protestants ought to be baptised, but we must not be so judgemental as this issue has been a problem for two centuries now.

Edward

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Thu 20 October 2005 2:58 pm

In the case of my friend...he was never a Christian. His mother is Muslim and father Jewish. He should have been triple-immersed.

Joanna

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Thu 20 October 2005 3:02 pm

In the case of my friend..his mother is Muslim and father Jewish. He should have been triple immersed.

Kollyvas · Post by **Kollyvas** » Thu 20 October 2005 4:30 pm

Firstly, if "the infrastructure is lacking," or the Bishop wills something other than Baptism for receptions, then as long as these things take place IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND NO WHERE ELSE, they are valid. Yes, it is common, for instance on the Holy Mountain, to regularize these questionable receptions, so, by extension--if +Bishop Kyrill blesses, such Baptisms can be regularized: it's not that the rite is being repeated but completed.
R

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Thu 20 October 2005 5:02 pm

it's not that the rite is being repeated but completed.

Right. And if the convert knows that it is possible to have triple immersion to complete the baptism, then it would be most spiritually beneficial, wouldn't it?

Joanna