Should I Receive a "Corrective Baptism"? 

Interesting story. I was baptized in the Anglican Church, and accepted by confirmation, along with my Dad who had been an Anglican priest and had baptized me in the Anglican Church before being accepted into Orthodoxy by confirmation, and then being made a deacon and priest. Years later, I, (not so seriously) thought about whether I could have one of my kids conditionally baptize me, at least in theory, but my kids were all baptized by my dad who had been accepted by confirmation, so then I thought, my wife could do it since she was baptized in an Orthodox church in Europe. Well, turns out that while her priest was Orthodox, his priest who baptized him had been baptized by a Uniate priest who was posing as an Orthodox priest in a village church for several years. With that realization, while I think rebaptism should be done, I have to accept the Holy Spirit's ability to take the broken baptism of heretics and to heal it with confirmation. If anyone going back through the line of priests leading up to you had been baptized by a heretic priest then we could have a problem otherwise, and entire churches could have had decades where the people had been faithful but the priest could have been illegitimate due to being a Uniate or even a fallen away priest who was just going through the motions etc. etc.

Were you chrismated again? I wasn’t. The father who baptized me said it wasn’t necessary since that was already done when I initially came into the Church.

@@jeffinjapan9005 Yes, I was.

Pâtir Peter stamata n'a milasse anglika d'en katalabenw

❤❤ Awesome!!!

Thank God！

oh wow, how big is the Japanese orthodox church?

Love Nihon-go Christianity.

I know for a fact that the Very traditionalist Irish Catholic priest who baptized me immersed babies. He immersed very gently, but he definitely immersed, from my own witness of him on other babies when I was young. I’m more concerned for my nieces and nephews, who were baptized(?) in a fancy giant clamshell font that was simply too shallow for proper full immersion; they were set inside and water poured on their head, so it was half immersion, half pouring. My sister’s family joined me and our mother in our conversion to Antiochian Orthodoxy, but like us, we’ve all only been Chrismated. I’m satisfied for me and my sister, but we have no idea about my mother (her parents were traveling when she was born, so she was baptized by a priest she never met when she could remember), and my sister’s kids and my brother in law are suspect, but I don’t know how to broach this topic to them. Our priest is satisfied with their certificate. How did your priest react to your decision?

@@eldermillennial8330 We never told our priest. We were baptized at the Monastery.

@@eldermillennial8330 Catholic baptism doesn’t count. It must be an Orthodox baptism.

I'm glad

Seriously we have become like Pharisees, making a baptism invalid because you don't get fully immersed really? So much pride in tradition, can make a man blind.

I was triple immersed by a Southern Baptist chaplain decades ago but was baptized upon coming into Holy Orthodoxy.

God bless you

Take refuge in prayer. Ask God to take care of this. He wants your salvation. In due time He will bring things about. Remain committed to the truth and to orthodoxy and the Lord will help you.

I'm in the same boat. Though in a month I will visit Mt Athos and will see if I can be baptised there, but like you my Antiochian priest just doesn't see it this way and goes with the policy. I'm no theologian, I'm only barely Orthodox but even I can see that the 'one baptism for the forgivenes of sins' really wasn't talking about baptisms done by heretical groups 700 or a thousand plus years hence.

Read the Didache, the pouring of water is ancient, and if the parish doesn't have the space for doing immersion baptism, it's ok to pour water on the head, not ideal but better than not doing it. Ideal is in living water meaning a river, are we doing that? nope 🤷‍♂️

@@digitalsublime Thank you I have not heard about this but I’ll read up

I received the exact same thing and I'm a bit confused as well. I have a friend who received Orthodox baptism in the same parish with the same priest as me with the same modus operandi, like you and me. When he went to Mount Athos, the hieromonk of the monastery (who is well known in Orthodoxy, perhaps the best known of the current Athonite abbots) where he was to whom he confessed that baptized him. I also know that in Greece metropolitans and priests do this. I think I will ask a priest that I know very well to baptize me by triple immersion so that I will no longer be troubled by this and find peace within me in relation to this experience. Can Father Peter enlighten us on this question?

@@user-mi4eh9nd4x , don't be misled. Read Fr P's responses in the comment thread to Paul Saint John's comment below.

@Duane , don't be misled. Read Fr P's responses in the comment thread to Paul Saint John's comment below.

IN this case, if he is truly bed-bound and unable to get into a baptismal font (i.e. in practice a horse trough many times), a true economia would be blessed. A priest could come to the home and put him in as much water as possible and then put a large bucket of water over his head. When there is NECESSITY then economia is blessed.

@@OrthodoxEthos I received Orthodox Baptism in a Russian parish. I was not immersed because the parish did not have a baptistery for adults. The priest poured basins of water on my head three times so that my whole body was affected. I was standing in a small plastic basin. I'm a bit confused too. I have a friend who received Orthodox baptism in the same parish with the same priest as me and in exactly the same way. When he went to Mount Athos, the hieromonk of the monastery (who is well known in Orthodoxy, perhaps the best known of the current Athonite abbots), where he was to whom he related this, this hieromonk baptized him with the three immersions. I also know that in Greece metropolitans and priests do this. I think I will ask a priest that I know very well to baptize me by triple immersion so that I will not be troubled by this any more and find peace within me in relation to this experience. What advice can you give? I am of goodwill and I know that there can be no savings on the very form of Baptism except in extreme cases when there is no water court or bathtub/swimming pool/basin easy to get...

@@haraldhardradi I was baptized this same way in ROCOR. I am a very large man, and my parish didn’t have a trough big enough. With that said, I’m baptized. I’m not getting re-baptized. That would be blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.

Yes good point

But he was Baptised by an Orthodox priest and the full exorcism was done. Also, in Serbia this happens a lot. Orthodox countries are just not cut out to receive adult converts. However, I was Baptised as an adult in Romania (conversion from Catholicism) and my priest took me out to a parish in the countryside where they had a massive vat for making wine and I was fully immersed in that. Personally I think it is safer to consider all the baptisms done by Orthodox priests with the permission of their Bishops as valid, if not we are heading towards the heresy of Donatism.

What I can tell you is that we all should be following the Holy Fathers, especially those of our times and those who have taught authoritatively on this subject. Do you have a spiritual father to guide you? If your reception is bothering you please bring it to him. A "corrective baptism" is meant to correct an error, not to convince someone that they are truly Orthodox.

@@OrthodoxEthos Yes I have a newer spiritual father in ROCOR now who has been a big help. I have been internally wondering if a corrective baptism would help to really bring me in line with the salt of true Christian faith, as I have been struggling with trying to do away with the old man from my Heterodox life. Could my issues be from an "error" in being baptized by a Latin rite priest or from lack of struggle?

I pray the Lord will make it possible for you to have the error corrected. It was a blessing to us, thank God.

@@agiasf7330 Thank you. I just have this feeling that a Baptism will really help me with my struggles, but I will have to see what my spiritual father says tomorrow.

@@revelation2-9 are you near a Greek monastery?

Same. This issue is very troubling for me. Admittedly my church is genuinely very small and has no large baptismal font, but there is a river nearby in the city

Yes. There's nothing like full immersion 3 times in the Holy Trinity.

No.

Yes.

The same happened to me. I was baptized in Russian mission in an embassy with only my head being dunked into the infant baptismal fount because my wife and I were the first adults they baptized. I received a Methodist baptism when I was 14. I am glad that I baptized into the Orthodox Church, but I wish that I was fully immersed.

Father Peter is telling you to listen to Christ that spoke through the holy fathers.

Don’t rush. Go deeper. Take your time. If you do, and you consult the saints of our day, you will absolutely seek baptism upon reception into the One Church. They would tell you: it is necessary. Do not except anything else. We speak from experience.

We can’t answer that for you from such a distance without knowing much more. You should attend a local monastery if you have one nearby. Or reach out to a Monastery like Holy Trinity Monastery JORDANVILLE NY and the bishop there, Bishop Luke.

@@OrthodoxEthos I was just in Jordansville!

This whole idea of "valid" is itself not really Orthodox. It's treating the Mysteries (sacraments) as though they're magical spells. There is one Mystery, which is the Church, and all Mysteries flow from this One Mystery. There is no baptism outside of the Orthodox Church, and according to our contemporary saints the presuppositions do not exist today to economize and all converts need to be baptized. You need to be baptized, because you were never baptized. We receive Christ in the Mysteries, and the Church is Christs Body, and so therefor Christ cannot be outside of Himself. To say there's baptism outside the Church is to say that Christ somehow is given apart from Himself! Or to say that the Church is fact not the Orthodox Church. Lots of people have opinions about this, lots of Orthodox clergy will disagree with this, but they aren't Saints. Contemporary saints, elders, the monks on Athos, they'll all tell you that you need to be baptized. It doesn't matter if you've been Orthodox for 5 minutes or 50 years, it doesn't change the fact that you need to be baptized.

This is all that matters. People join the church and follow Christ. Saying our reception is “irregular “ is fine but the reason this is a hot button issue is because there is an insinuation this is a salvific issue period. I just want people to be honest about what they are saying, because this is too serious of a topic to not be spacific. The fact of the matter is we have a mountain of evidence of saints who agree it’s the right thing to baptize all new people coming into the church. Fine. I agree, but there is literally NO writing on people who are already living a life in the church, communing, confessing who are chrismated only. There are no writings I have found that document on paper that a chrismated alone person should be baptized again. I would love to be wrong and shown the writings I have done deep research on this for two years. All we have are word of mouth and antidotal testimony. That’s not a lot to go on. And furthermore, not only does it lead people to despairing pain on their state of being, but unravels The Whole understanding of trust in the hierarchy of the church itself. So what if some monks do it on mount athos, some athonits also got the vaccine. They are not infallible. One does not just walk into Mordor, meaning you can’t in America just go get a corrective baptism. You can get excommunicated in many places. So some suggest doing it in secret, well I’m not comfortable doing something that huge and hiding it from my priest, I think that’s wrong. If you believe it’s salvific then rock on but you should be honest and bold and martyr yourself for the cause. I am suspicious of anything that is done in secret.

Drew Binkley, even if it's not a matter of salvation, because the convert didn't choose it but was, rather, given it by those who ought to have known better but, alas, appear not to have done so, the faithful incorrectly received by chrismation are being cheated of what they should have received. They are missing out. And in these days of great confusion, deliberately unleashed by the enemy of our salvation, receiving heterodox by chrismation into Christ's Body, the only true Church, is doing no one at all any good. It is, in fact, hurting all. It needs to be stopped, except in cases of deathbed conversions & other extreme situations, where akrevia is not possible & thus economia is needed, truly, for the baptism to occur. In cases where Orthodox people of good disposition of heart, due to no fault of theirs, were incorrectly received, I pray all those Orthodox faithful will be able to receive the great blessing of corrective baptism in their own lands.

@@agiasf7330 Very well said!!

From an OE team member: Much can be said but consider these three things: 1) Canon 95 of Trullo (6th Ecumenical Council) requires the Eunomians to be baptized upon entering the Church because, as it notes, their previous baptism which was outside the Church was done with only one immersion. Today, almost all heterodox confessions baptize with one immersion and/or no immersion but rather pouring or sprinkling. Therefore, based on this canon alone we see that the reason requiring Orthodox baptism could and should be readily employed for nearly all those who convert to Orthodoxy today. Triple immersion by an Orthodox priest or bishop is the only true baptism, the only baptism that unites a man to Christ, even if under certain circumstances at certain times people were received by chrismation, which under certain circumstances is blessed and holy. However, today many are received by chrismation without the patristic presuppositions and should have been baptized. 2) Acts 10:44-48. If baptism should never happen after chrismation, as many suppose, why then did the Apostle Peter baptize those upon whom the Holy Spirit had been given to? He did not see the Spirit being poured out as a point of no return. If he did, he would have said all that remains is to receive the Eucharist. Instead, he says, "CAN ANY MAN FORBID WATER?" 3) The saints who have dealt with this issue in detail and with pressing pastoral need are unanimous on this: baptism must not be withheld from those coming to the Church. Unless a heterodox baptism kept the form of the Orthodox baptism then economy is not blessed, and even if the form was kept nothing constrains the Church from granting the gift of baptism to a convert. The initial group of saints that dealt with this issue head on and in great detail, the Kollvades Fathers, especially when heterodox confessions abounded and Orthodox form had been lost amongst them, said that unless the form was kept they should be baptized. How close their theology is to Orthodox theology not of primary importance, and is not seen as of primary importance to the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils either. We must die with Christ and be raised with Him. This is done with triple immersion, not pouring or sprinkling. Furthermore, saints of our day support both reception by baptism and "corrective" baptisms. These saints inlcude St. Paisios, St. Iakovos, Elder Ephraim of Arizona, Fr. Kosmas of Zaire, priests and hierarchs of ROCOR who are links to the ROCOR saints, and many more. God bless you.

@@OrthodoxEthos thanks for ingo and nothing personal but..... another reason to not convert. I consider this arrogant towards my Trinitarian Baptism. That set of rules goes over and beyond biblical requirements just like those legalistic fasting rules. Although those I could just quietly ignore. So Baptists ignore my valid Baptism as well as some Orthodox. Interesting. So once the last good Protestant church here has died out or become liberal I have to join Roman catholic to have communion because reformed/pentecostal/Baptist communion denies real presence. So I just have to pretend to be catholic. Well I theologically agree with orthodox more than catholic both of them are incapable to distinguish between different protestants. As are many protestants who have no clue which church they should join if they wanna remain protestants. And the Russian church is currently run by kirill who has just his soul to the devil by kissing pootins behind by condoning his war of aggression against Ukraine. Sadly some eastern orthodox churches are like that. Well we have a Syrian church here...might try that one if they don't trash my Baptism.

I think you would be able to come to a conclusion which is not so extreme if you were better acquainted with the saints and the history of the church. In particular, you should acquaint yourself with the Saints of our day and follow them. In the orthodox church, authority rest in the Saints. Everyone, including Bishops and priests, must follow them. This is not the first time, and may not be the last time, in church history that a majority of Christians were not following the holy fathers. This does not mean that the church has been lost or that there is no longer a path to salvation.

@Lovemusic78566 To be fair, I think it's cultural. I grew up around Irish and Italians who are always forthright with their feelings, and at least with Slavic cultures they have had decades of oppression where trusting people could mean being sent to s gulag.

😅😮

Yes !

No. You are saying the church fathers where incorrect into accepting you into the church.

Yes, your clergy were incorrect in how they received you into the Church.

@@johnsambo9379 they may have been! We don’t have a special infallible person in a magic chair like papism ! They’re only infallible when they follow the holy tradition

Many people have been, years, even decades after reception by chrismation. Glory to God!

“Corrective baptism” is a term often used to refer to baptizing someone who was received already into the Orthodox Church but was not baptized in three immersions in the Orthodox Church. All converts should be received by baptism but it is not “corrective baptism” for converts who are being received into the Orthodox Church for the first time.

@@OrthodoxEthos but aren’t Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Protestants received into the Eastern Orthodox Church by Christmation rather than another Baptism?

One immersion, no? . . . If so, considered to be “like the Eunomians” and the Second Council expressly says that they must be baptized.

@@OrthodoxEthos Please forgive me. I don't understand what you are saying. So sorry.

Art - All I’m saying is that what you said above is not actually correct. You were fully immersed only once. One immersion in the Baptist Church, no? If so, this is not considered a “valid“ baptism, that is immersion, because we do it three times with each name of the divinity.

@@patriarchprime ok. Thank you.

PP - I wasn’t actually saying that. I was answering his statement that “since I was baptized by full immersion“…

@@WishingForRain well what are the Christmated-only supposed to do when practically no Orthodox priests in America will do corrective baptisms

@@stuntman083, o you can have the error corrected. If you pray with pain of heart, the Lord will lead you. I prayed for years & he led me where the error was corrected, for which I'm profoundly grateful. Glory to God in the highest!

@@WishingForRain I will ask my priest if he will give me a corrective baptism before I'm ordained

@@WishingForRain I am curious as to what you think of the economia in the Didache concerning the availability of water and the potential acceptability of pouring. I say this, because, it is the one thing I cannot sqaure easily with St Nicodemus' asserting that RCs should be rebapitzed due to them having incorrect form. I know that Nicodemus knew what the Didache was, but I don't think he had ever read it because it was only "rediscovered" and published by Metropolitan Philotheos Byrennios. I honestly wonder, being that the Didache is cloaked with (some) authority due to the second canon of Trullo (which makes the Canon of St Athanasius' Festal Letter in force, which considers the Didache deuterocanonical for use with catechumens), *if* it would modify St Nicodemus' reasoning, if at all. I honestly do not know.

@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I think it is noteworthy that the Didache speaks to availability. I don’t think this stands in necessary contradiction to St. Nikodemos, since he too acknowledged the power of necessity. The problem is that water and tubs are readily available, yet certain sects and even the Orthodox don’t bother procuring the necessary amounts of water, nor tubs suitable for sufficient quantities.

If you were chrismated and have been communing and confessing then you lack nothing. You tasted the body and blood what would you be lacking?

Your salvation is not in danger being chrismated. Your orthodox and a member of the church, how would you be more orthodox then you are now?

Yes as Apostolic Succession is only in the Church.

If you go to Mount Athos, any father there will tell you that you need to be baptised. The baptism outside of the Orthodox Church is not valid. May God help you and those in your situation do the right thing.

@@valeenorris921 Thank you. I now know this to be true.

No one said that. Did they? Listen to it again.

@@OrthodoxEthos No you didn’t say those words but couldn’t what I said be implied from what you said? Don’t you think what you are saying creates doubt on the part of the many converts who weren’t baptized? And if so what is the benefit for them to go around doubting their conversion? Maybe include something about this. For the record, I agree with your quest for “rigorism” and for doing things the right way even when it is hard and against the prevailing wind. I’ve read your book and greatly benefited from it. I am not attacking you.

The mercy of God surpasses whatever human failings we've been subjected to. This is where the faithful, having Tradition revealed to them, discern what the Spirit is moving them to do.

I don't think you will find someone who will say explicitly "you are not Orthodox." It is not what the saints say, not what our contemporary Elders say. The only thing said is that this is irregular, does not follow the presuppositions for oikonomia, and so needs to be corrected. Nothing more is inferred, just that. I think this is done because who can speak of these irregularities with precision? All that we need to do is follow the Holy Fathers, the presuppositions, and then everything else is sorted out.

@@basilp5179 How can laity be in charge of correcting anything? If this were a forum dominated by Bishops I could see the point in advocating a return to the norm. But what we have is a sea of laymen being told their conversion is irregular and possibly suspect. I don’t see how this helps a layperson become more holy by wondering if his bishop is Orthodox.

It is well known. Indeed. The question of course is, did Fr. Seraphim make this decision on the basis of Patristic criteria or was it with the idea that economy has no presuppositions? In other words, no matter what the heterodox do, we can go ahead and economize? Do you understand what is it stake here? What are the presuppositions for economy? I don’t think Fr. Seraphim addressed this.

@@OrthodoxEthos He based his position and advise for the converts on the teaching of St. Basil, as I mentioned above. Maybe it's about his 1st canon, the last section about the ecratites. I don't have a clear position on this topic of the "corrective baptism", but there are some points against it, as it is the case with fr. Seraphim.

I tried to post his letter twice. He specifically talked about a convert who had been in the church for years and was pressured to be baptized and did it. His opinion was that it showed immature faith and looking for psychological comfort. He knew people who were doing this and disagreed. It’s important when talking about contemporary father and elders to include the other side off the coin. Many see him as a saint and prophetic for our times . Since he’s the only one who put ink to paper on this topic his opinion should be included. Especially since orthodox ethos uses him to build lectures on. Please read the letter.

Father Seraphim Rose, whom I consider a saint, was indeed received by Chrismation, although details are somewhat murky. In his letters, he refers to a hothouse approach to the canons, calling out in particular those in Boston under Panteleimon. As St. Athanasios read Dioynsius, we must contextualize seemingly divergent opinions of Fathers by reference to the purpose of the writing. In more informal writings, we shouldn’t draw rules. So for example, Father Seraphim was resisting a growing sentiment that would lead to schism with HOCNA. He was in this way speaking against a legitimate spiritual disease that was proven to be so just years later when the Boston monks started their own sect. He similarly spoke to really specific circumstances wherein this person that received a corrective baptism loudly condemned everyone around them. This does indeed show spiritual immaturity. Since Father Seraphim didn’t consider or write on the issue in any great depth, but rather spoke to a particular circumstance in a crucial moment in ROCOR, wherein the path laid out before it was basically Matthewite old calendarism with HOCNA, or the broad path ROCOR traditionally took, I think it unwise to draw any substantial inferences. Fr. Seraphim was always emphasizing the need to keep ROCOR together, to look up to the old bishops, who may not have been correct with everything, but who were an integral part of the Russian Church Abroad, who themselves grew up in an air of pre-revolutionary Russia. It is perhaps noteworthy that Fr. Seraphim baptized everyone that came to him, and although I cannot verify it, that he was troubled by his own chrismation. It is possible that this was remedied, and that none but a few know of this.

@@basilp5179 zero sources, and all total speculation. You sidestepped the entire point, and disregard any contrary opinion - such as fr Seraphim’s.

This is the problem with traditionalism, it is a heresy in itself. To deny the power of God over human weakness and circumstance, is to reduce God. Let us not forget, St dismas, St Alban, did they have tipple immersion? No. Where was their Chrismation? What then do we say, are Gods hands tied because his Saints didn't get baptized according to the letter of the tradition. The saints here are baptized in the blood of their martyrdom! God is so much greater than the vast amount of people on here are willing to accept. I used to see this in Protestantism, that sort of "God cant overcome this or that" - what do they call it "Total Depravity." Timothy wares states that their was a time when the only requirement to enter the orthodox church was a renunciation of the old Roman dogma, and to abide in the orthodox way. So really this new innovation to the Orthodox tradition smells like a Western mind set to me. I am so glad to be Russian Orthodox, we ignore the Greeks thinking here, and i am glad we do, otherwise i wouldn't be Orthodox today.

We have Chrismation, not confirmation.

​​​​@@Stsebastian8900Exceptions do not disprove the normative way. You swing the complete other way than traditional and that is when heresies start popping up. Of course overzealous is no better however this is not overzealous to seek true baptism in the one Church and not to accept just Chrismation. Spiritual laziness has no place in the Church. Met. Kallistos Ware of blessed memory + underlines a heresy of the time with only renunciation of Papalism. Errors happen and should be corrected or we lose the precious things of the Faith and fall into lukewarm nominalism. Don't fall into that. ROCOR baptizes everyone.

@@LadyMaria The Roman Catholics actually do Chrismation (applying their Chrism) at Baptism, but do their "Confirmation" later around 12. I'll mention though that the Greek Archdiocese of North America says that the term confirmation can be used interchangeably with Chrismation. The "seal" of Chrism makes firm the Baptism.

@@mertonhirsch4734 We call it Chrismation. Antiochian jurisdiction sadly is becoming ecumenist. Agree to disagree on the latter.

No. This happens at my Parish as well because the Baptismal Font is only for babies and young kids. Why can't they purchase a trough for adults?

a trough is $80 on Amazon

@@marieegypt7091 The Didache clearly says this is allowed.

@@user-me9oq1jp8r So you need only submerge the head ? Father Peter Heers is not very explicit about the details.

Very unfortunately this happens all the time to “ Cradle “ born Orthodox. The main reason being is that hundreds, if not thousands of Bishops and Priests have been “ baptized” in this uncanonical manner for many, many decades. Why would it now surprise us, if converts are received by chrismation, since in actually they practice and have the same way of Baptizing ( pouring / sprinkling ) as most of world orthodoxy

They could be baptized. There’s nothing that says they must not. Saint basil said as much in his 47th canon. If there’s a need, and they have maintained the form just as the church, economy is also possible.

@@OrthodoxEthos How does one decide?

Ceramic, baptism is into Christ, into His Body. His Body is the Orthodox Church. There are no Mysteries outside Christ's Body, the Church. The one baptism of the Creed is done by the OC into the OC, i.e., Christ's Body. It is no baptism if the presuppositions aren't met. Baptism entails triple immersion in the Name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit by an Orthodox priest into XC's Body, which is the OC. That is the one baptism of the Nicene Creed. If we there was an error in the way we were received, then it is a great blessing to us to have it (the error) corrected. If we seek this truly from our hearts, then God, Who is merciful, grants this to us, thank God.

Ceramic, but it may not be instantly granted. It wasn't to me. I prayed for years. I pray others get it much more quickly.

One ORTHODOX Baptism

Of course, this is a major problem. One can pray and seek a solution and trust in God to provide. Some people travel to Mt. Athos or to an Athonite monastery elsewhere for this purpose, but it is important not to leave the unity of the Church as there are groups outside of the Church that will agree to correctly baptize a person but the grace of the Holy Spirit cannot be received from those in schism and heresy.

@@OrthodoxEthos Ya mt Athos is an option but if that’s the only options then any woman wanting a corrective baptism is out of luck. Does this mean we shouldn’t be receiving communion until we get a corrective baptism? What if we already have received communion not knowing this was necessary?

Were you immersed thrice?

Guess you will have to wait and see. Too many ecumenist bishops nowadays.

@@katherinegeorge2400 It is not very Orthodox to try to turn people against their bishops. The earliest church fathers spoke of the importance of obeying the bishops like you would obey Christ. "Ecumenism" is also vague nonsense tbh.

@@thegamephilosopher2214 The Saints say to stand up for the faith when there is error. Bishops are fallible and especially the modern ecumenistic ones will lead people to hell, not really the goal of a Christian.

So you think father seraphim rose is possibly in hades??? Really? The chrismated alone monk who father Peter uses to build most of his lecture material on?

Don't panic is first step. Talk to your Priest about your desire to have a full baptism if they do not think it is necessary then be patient and pray. God will not abandon those who seek after him in his Church.

Are you familiar with a Patristic teachings as to what are the presuppositions? Because you only name the three names of the Holy Trinity. That is not the only requirement for economy.

Remember that "baptism" = immersion. This is presupposed in all of the aforementioned texts.

There are no Holy Mysteries outside of the Church.

Metropolitan Kallistos has also written on the importance of the “charismatic apostolic succession” of saints and spiritual fathers and how their authority is parallel to and complements the authority of the bishops. Many of these spiritual fathers call for corrective baptism and we should consider their spiritual authority and importance in the church.

Forgive me for responding, but the saints, Fathers, canons, and councils of the Church are very clear that baptism is the means by which all are to be received into the Orthodox Church, there are no baptisms outside of the Church, and exceptions to this rule should only be made if a person is dying and baptism in three full immersions is not possible. We should obey our bishops but bishops are also supposed to uphold the canons and teachings of the saints and Fathers. When they do not, it is better to obey God rather than man and find a spiritual father who understands not only the importance of baptizing all who are coming into the Church, but who also has spiritual experience and has made progress in the purification of the heart and noetic prayer. Blind obedience to bishops and priests as if ordination bestows infallibility is not Orthodox teaching, no matter how many who claim to be Orthodox say this. When converts are not received by baptism, once they attend a baptism or learn more about baptism, they tend to be constantly plagued by the thought that something is missing, unless and until they receive a proper baptism.

Strictly speaking, according to the canons and Fathers, three full immersions are called for, yes - unless it was a legitimate need for oikonomia (such as one on their death bed, etc.).

@@OrthodoxEthos I think it was a matter of convenience to the priest at the time since it was a group baptism of multiple children. Since then I took Holy Communion hundreds of times... I have a dated, signed and stamped baptism certificate from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Not sure there is even a place in Sofia where they can do a tripple immersion of an adult. I think if I pray about it as father Peter says things I could get clarity as to where to go for this, most importantly to which priest.

That’s true, because it’s not through rational knowledge, but through the uncreated Light of God, which is knowledge itself. The Light is knowledge, knowledge is not Light. One has to humble oneself, be crucified, empty himself, become obedient,submit to Christ, and then enlightenment comes.

@@OrthodoxEthos I'm trying my best. It's a daunting task sometimes. Thanks for your videos though, they've been very helpful.

the didache isn't canonical. what do the saints say?

@@seraphim3TN The didache is not canonical however it was written by the early saints of the church. Anyway ask your local bishop and follow what he says.

@@isawthelight my local bishop said he won't baptise me. i no longer follow my Bishop's word because he goes against Christ and the Saints. I now travel to a distant parish that will baptise me.

I wish you all the best on your journey 🙏

@@isawthelightif the local bishops disobeys what Jesus said to do then he’s being a disobedient slave to God

Don’t give up. Keep praying. Be patient. God will bring someone. Write us and let us know your location.

@@OrthodoxEthos God bless you. This is the contact address on your website? Peace.

no. but the new testament tithe is closer to 100%

No we tithe what we can afford.

@@joseonwalking8666 I'm just telling you what the new testament says

@@seraphim3TN yes and some people don't even have money so they give in other ways a sermon on tithing

A lot of Orthodox Parishes are poor and need support, how else do the bills get paid? Stewardship is important. It doesn't have to 10% but one must support one's Parish.

Yes, I have read of Mark of Ephesus as well, I think that it was in the 1400s , can’t quite remember the date, must read it again. I was received by chrismation as I was baptised in the Anglican Church as a baby. I was not Orthodox when I married in the Orthodox Church but my baptism was acknowledged. Therefore many years later when the Good Lord called me, I was received by Chrismation, baptism was not an option. Of course we must be very careful with our traditions but also we must not put Our Lord ‘in a box’, as a young child said. He knows the heart and we can obsess on rules and regulations as did the Pharisees, and forget what it is really all about.

At the Council of Fierra-Florence, St. "Mark laid to the charge of the latter [the papists] that they had 'two baptisms, one administered by trine immersion, and the other by pouring water upon the top of the head.' To which Gregory [the papal representative] replies, 'That there are two baptisms, no one ever asserted, for holy baptism is one,' &c.; 'and that the trine immersion is necessary is evident, for thus has it been handed down by the saints, to signify the three days' burial of the Lord. So, indeed, it has been handed down, and so the rituals of the Latins teach that it shall be observed.'" So you see, he confronted the papists, but was told they did not baptize improperly, and so he spoke elsewhere of them being received by chrismation, but never actually forbade baptism of them. Since he was under the impression that they preserved the form, why would he by necessity require baptism? He could exercise oikonomia here.

He angrily wrote an epistle to Constantinople during the 1488 local council that due to the Latins heresies we should stop receiving by Confession of Faith but rather by Chrismation. There was no mention of economy (which is an 18th century innovation) and chrismation was the normative way to receive Roman Catholic converts until the 1755 local council of Constantinople that went back on this.

@@BruvaLucius I’m supposing you are not Orthodox?

@@basilp5179 I am Orthodox, why do you ask?

“It is a great art to succeed in having your soul sanctified. A person can become a saint anywhere. He can become a saint in Omonia Square*, if he wants. At your work, whatever it may be, you can become a saint through meekness, patience, and love. Make a new start every day, with new resolution, with enthusiasm and love, prayer and silence - not with anxiety so that you get a pain in the chest.” - St. Porphyrios, Wounded by Love * Omonia Square: the commercial center of Athens, also synonymous with vice and corruption

True salvific grace is found only in Orthodoxy. The grace in the Church is used by men and women, and that produces holy male and female saints, elders and eldresses. We do not teach methods that are meant to be applied everywhere and whatever confession or sect, but they are meant to be applied in the universal Church, that is, the Orthodox Church. Union with Rome can happen if the Pope of Rome repents and becomes Orthodox again.

Why do you oppose them? Christ is incarnate. He lives in his people. He dwells and walks among them. They are not living alone. They live in Christ. They speak from Christ. This was his promise from the beginning. You undo the incarnation. You actually think you’re following Jesus Christ but you’re turning away from his apostles and disciples. He said those who listen to you will listen to me. Those who turn away from you will turn away from me. You’re turning away from Pentecost.

no. you had a bath basically

Is it possible that you are ignorant of many things with regard to this matter? There are many canons which address The presuppositions for accepting someone coming from the heterodox to the church by economy. In other words, without repeating the form of the mystery. However, for quite some time now the heterodox have systematically and intentionally abandon the apostolic form of the mystery. And therefore, they need to be immersed, lacking it in any form and every way.

Check out the book “I Confess One Baptism.” You won’t feel that it is inane, at least, after doing so.

you are not correct

@@seraphim3TN I am, the Churvh say it is correct! You have the right to say what you want, in final I will not be judge by you! Plus I am orthodox priest!

@@radulazar5485 baptised literally means triple immersion not pouring.

@@radulazar5485 and I'm the pope

@@seraphim3TN good for you! 😁

Does the orthodox church deny the council of Trent? … Hmmm…You are not very familiar with the Orthodox Church or the council of Trent. I highly recommend that you read about the eighth ecumenical council that took place in 879 in Constantinople: pravoslavie.ru/97929.html

The council of Trent was a Roman Catholic Communion council, not Orthodox. There is no 'Vicar of Christ' which means "in the place of Christ"; 'anti' means "in the place of" too in the Greek. The Church has always been concilliar. No mere man is above the consensus of the whole (katholiki) Church. Christ is Head and needs no substitutes.

The toll house teaching is not at all heretical. The book “On the Departure of the Soul” from St. Anthony’s Monastery demonstrates this exhaustively.

As St. Cyprian of Carthage said, for those who have reposed and were not received properly into the Church we must leave the matter to God’s mercy, but this should not mean that we repeat the errors committed in the past. For those who are still living we have a chance to repent and to correct anything that has been done incorrectly. The Lord, out of economy, also allowed the thief on the cross to enter Paradise because of his sincere repentance at the time of death, but we don’t use such an exception to claim that we should just live however we want and even commit crimes with the expectation that we can delay our repentance until our last breath and still enter Paradise. We cannot make rules out of exceptions.

@@OrthodoxEthos I guess that makes sense. What I still don’t understand is how his spiritual father who is a saint didn’t tell him to do a corrective baptism? He would’ve been aware of the patristic teachings. Every other contemporary saint was against ecumenism and any presuppositions that came along with it

we follow Christ not a pope

We do not recognize the Pope of Rome. Ecumenism is anathema.

@@LadyMaria then you reject the early church fathers who clearly spoke of the seat of Peter, look at Leo the great and church readings. Not accepting the pope is and was a later development, you are picking which traditions you choose to follow and not the fullness of the church and its grace.

@@PLE594 I don't, no. But the RCism is famous for deviation. Pope Nicholas in the latter 9th century was excommunicated partly because of his push for power not his, fyi. "First among equals" was always the overall belief concerning the Bishop of Rome.

@@LadyMaria but if you believe that than then why do you not accept the church.

Sorry this was meant as a response to one of the below comments, I’m not sure how it got posted up here.

I'm not sure why it was posted here, either. I'll just say what I said is done out of admiration and love for Father Seraphim. I'm not making conjecture, but speaking truly about the pernicious influence of what eventually became HOCNA at this time -- Fr. Seraphim specifically drew the attention in that letter to a certain mindset that he elsewhere called the boston mentality. I have read and absorbed many of Fr. Seraphim Rose's writings, even editing some out of admiration. I believe what I said above is done with fidelity to him. It is at least noteworthy that, for example, Fr. Alexey made those same connections about that letter, and the others related to corrective baptism. I can dig up what he himself relates if that is not a book you have. As for the speculation about his own sense of his not being received by baptism, it came from someone who I do trust, but I don't expect that to mean much to you. It is a possibility, though.

I also should note that I said specifically not to draw substantial inferences, as in not to make a rule out of his letter. By contextualizing it, I am in fact avoiding drawing substantial inferences.

@@rapunzelstower8913 I did finally find the source of my source and am hoping to find the actual letter from Fr. Seraphim Rose soon.