Some good info and beautiful icons of early British saints recognized by Orthodoxy: http://oodegr.co/english/istorika/britain/British_saints.htm
Hi CWJ From what I have read Orthodox Churches do not usually require that a person is re-baptised by immersion and do, indeed, accept Anglican baptism. I will see is I can find a link to share with you. So, I think that the priest who gave you this information is wrong. What is required is Chrismation.
Have a look at this. It is entitled "What is the Orthodox view of Roman Catholic Sacrements", but it also looks st the position Anglicans joining the Orthodox Church with regards to Baptism. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm
From the Nicene Creed of the Council of Constantinople 381 AD. As I understand the matter the reason for the inclusion of this commitment to the universality of Baptism was to ensure the unity of the Church. At this time (381 AD) the Church was a little fragmented, with the Five Ancient Patriarchs look at a range of splits, Arianism being the most significant, and the Pneumatomachi also being important at this time. Any Church that expresses a commitment to the Creed of the Councils, the Nicene Creed, should have real trouble with anything that looks or smells like re-Baptism. Ephesians 4:4-6
This link is probably better. http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html
Thanks again. So it appears that only the most very strict of Orthodox groups, and not the mainstream, would practice re-baptism. Good to know, thanks for the help on this
It seems the issue of "re-baptism" differs in various EO dioceses. In the Greek churches and Oriental Orthodox no rebaptisms. In the Bulgarian there is rebaptisms. That is my experience.
If you have researched this, I expect you may already have seen this, suggesting the English Church was still in communion with Orthodoxy until 1066 (an Orthodox opinion). http://pemptousia.com/2013/04/harold-ii-the-last-orthodox-king-of-england/ This history also gives some insight (page 61 onwards) http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE FALL OF ORTHODOX ENGLAND 5X8.htm
Also on rebaptisms, I believe most EO Churches believe in them for converts because they have not been" baptized in the "One True Church"(EO)...
If any group requires re-baptism or they say your baptism is not valid because it is not in the mode we believe is correct. Politely and quickly walk away and pray the Holy Spirit will enlighten their minds. The Bible does not specify a mode. Baptisma (Greek word) mean to dip, pour or immerse. Scripture uses the word and examples given can be of any of the three modes. The Church has embraced the different modes at different times. They have baptized at birth, waited until the death bed etc. The Didache book 2 chapter 7 tells us to immerse in running COLD water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. One immersion. How many of us have been immersed in running cold water, ie living water. The first catechism tells us the order of acceptance of the modes. Immersion in running cold living water, to immersion in warm water to pouring and sprinkling if running water is not available. How many Orthodox are baptized in the early church preferred method. The Didache is by tradition to be the teaching of Christ through the Apostles. Remember in John's Gospel books like this were mentioned. So if the Orthodox or Baptists require re-baptism, they violate the canons of scripture, the creeds, tradition and therefore reason. Fr. Mark
To add to this: The orthodox list of the 70 Disciples. http://www.orthodox.net/saints/70apostles.html Depending on which list you use, 2 or 3rd century Aristobulus is the 33rd disciple. And the First Bishop in Britain. Roman Catholic list: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0524.htm Aristobulus is listed as 29th on the list and the Bishop of Britain. When did he arrive? Gildas the Wise (500-570 A.D.) says he arrived in the last year of the reign of Tiberias Claudius Nero (42 B.C. to 37 A.D.) Not to be confused with Nero Germanicus (54-68 AD) who burned Rome and killed St Peter and St Paul. Rome has him listed as a Saint and his feast day is March 15. Tradition, back by Gildas, has him ordained Bishop by St Paul. The historical documents show he was in Britain as the First Bishop in 37 AD. Last year of Tiberias. He died in Glastonbury Abbey in 54 A.D. The exact nature of his death is cloudy. Some references say he was a martyr and others he died peacefully. Either case Christianity had been in Britain before there was even a Church in Rome. Roman tradition is Peter and Paul established the Church in the 50's A.D. At least 13 years after the Church had been established in Britain. Using Roman and Orthodox historical documents. Also the great St Patrick, Roman Catholic Saint, was in the 5th century. 2 centuries before Pope Gregory the Great sent St Augustine to Canterbury, where Augustine found a thriving Church. Starting with Gregory, Rome has tried to dominate Britain where Britain was more in line with the Orthodox and held to an Orthodox calendar until the Roman was forced on them at Whitby. Fr. Mark
Great post. The Didache does help clear up a lot of questions especially in the light of Apostolic Tradition.
It is generally not Orthodox teaching to re-baptise Anglicans (and some other eg Lutherans) or RC. http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html However, Greek old calendarist Churches in the US and ROCOR may still do this. Most Orthodox Churches now use the Russian rite described in the link.
I'm new to traditional Anglicanism in a way too. I was an Evangelical Anglican to start with - Confirmed in an evangelical Anglican Parish. The message there was much the same as you would find in other Protestant evangelical denominations and I learnt very little about what being an Anglican really means. After that I attended, at various times, an independent evangelical church, a Baptist Church (luckily never re-baptised), visited a charismatic Church and attended a charismatic Christian Union at University where members tried to persuade me that I should have the gift of speaking in tongues (which they took to mean some unintelligible language). After falling away from my faith for some years I have been called back and now attend an Anglo Catholic Church (in communion with Canterbury), although am also drawn to Orthodoxy.
Welcome(back)home to the Anglican Church. Orthodoxy is very beautiful and attractive, but after yrs in the OC "something"didn't seem quite right with Orthodoxy. It was a great inner turmoil to leave it. But, I am so happy to have embraced Traditional Anglicanism. I feel like I have come home. I dont think I could ever honestly think about going back again.