Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!hedrick From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Validity of Baptism (Was Re: In Communion with Rome?) Message-ID: Date: 6 Nov 90 08:22:45 GMT Organization: Concordia University, Montreal (Quebec) Lines: 27 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu From: WINS%"concour.cs.concordia.ca!victor%uunet.UUCP@abvax.icd.ab.com" 3-NOV-1990 19:38:47.76 {This is in response to questions about whether Orthodox rebaptize people who believe Orthodox. A posting from Victor Krawczuk reports that her sister was rebaptized in going from Baptist to Russian Orthodox. --clh] This is just basic Orthodox ecclesiology - the West went into heresy when they added the Filoque to the Creed about the year 1000AD (there were other problems too, but i'm unsure of every detail). Therefore there is no Church in the west, therefore there is no baptism. The Reformation is not thought of as improving this situation. (i don't think any branch of the Reformation even addressed the Filioque.) Since there is no one central authority in Orthodoxy - there is quite a bit of leeway on how strictly this ecclesiology is enforced in any particular country and in any Jurisdiction, but i do suspect that in the case of a Protestant group like the Baptists, even "liberal" Orthodox Churches would rebaptize. The rationale is that Protestant groups were founded by people, not Christ, therefore they are not the original Church and they have no valid Baptism. ando. [This comment may be somewhat dated. The mutual anathemas between Rome and at least some of the Orthodox churches have been retracted. So I'm not sure Orthodox would now take the line that there's no Church in the West. However I can see that they might have problems with Baptists. --clh]