Case LXXX: Conversion from the Eastern Schism to the Catholic Church

Jovan, after being baptized and brought up in the Greek Church, now desires to be received into the Catholic Church. Is his baptism to be regarded as valid?

The Church strictly orders a priest who obtains faculties to admit to the Catholic Church a person belonging to some other Christian denomination to make sure that the convert has been validly baptized. If post investigationem peractam it appear certain that he has not been thus baptized, the priest must baptize him absolute. Should there be a probabile rationabile dubium with regard to his baptism, the Sacrament must be administered again conditionally.

Have the Eastern schismatics valid baptism?

Baptism is undoubtedly administered validly in all the so-called Churches (the name is used incorrectly, as there is but one Church, viz., the Catholic) which have come into existence in consequence of the Oriental or Greek schism since 1054. We may regard as validly baptized all the members of the schismatical Greek Church in the patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, also all who belong to the Orthodox Church in Russia, to the Greek Church in Greece, to the Orthodox Churches in Bulgaria, Servia and Montenegro (Cernagora), as well as the Serbs, Bulgarians and Roumanians in the Turkish territory near the Balkans. The same is true of the Serbs, or Greeks, or Orthodox in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the Dalmatians, Croatians and Slavonians, both in Hungary and in Austria. It is true also of all adherents of the schismatical Greek Church in Roumania, as well as of the members of the Graeco-Roumanian Church in Hungary and Siebenbürgen, as well as in Bukovina. We may safely assume that the members of any one of these Churches have been validly baptized. Some doubt may arise in the case of Russian sectarians, who have cut themselves off from the Orthodox state Church and can hardly be said to retain the principles of Christianity. There seem to be several millions who belong to various sects of this kind, and many may not have been baptized at all if they have succeeded in evading the compulsory baptism required by the state.

There are good reasons for regarding as valid the baptism of members of the Eastern Churches. They have preserved the hierarchy instituted by Christ with the potestas ordinis, and their priests have valid orders. They retained the Sacrament of Holy Order and great care has always been taken to preserve the validity of their orders. In the Churches enumerated above there are priests (popes) who administer the Sacrament of baptism, in fact, in some of these Churches, baptism could at one time not be administered by laymen, but only by a properly ordained priest. A Catholic synod in 1703 complained: "For it is a pernicious law of the schismatics that infants, even when necessity is urgent, are to be baptized only by a priest" (Collect. Lacensis, I. p. 298).

Although this may not have been a universal practise among the Eastern schismatics, it shows what scrupulous care was taken to secure valid baptism, as laymen were not permitted to administer it lest they should not do so validly. This fear seems justifiable, as the people in general are not well instructed in religious matters.

The members of the Eastern Churches, like ourselves, regard baptism as the first and most indispensable Sacrament, by means of which original sin and all actual sins committed before baptism are forgiven, and sanctifying grace is imparted to the soul. The idea, common among Protestants, that baptism is only a signum mere externae aggregationis ad ecclesiam, is quite foreign to the Eastern Churches. They are far from regarding it as a matter of indifference how baptism is administered, and their priests are most careful in seeing that this most important Sacrament is administered validly in accordance with their ritual. The Church is forced, however, to emphasize the fact that the laity may now validly baptize in casu necessitatis if the correct matter, form and intention are present.

Pope Eugenius IV., when he issued the decree Pro Armenis at the Council of Florence in 1439, felt it necessary to decide: "The minister of this Sacrament, Baptism, is the priest, to whom it belongs by office to baptize. But in a case of necessity not only a priest or deacon, but also a layman or woman, indeed a pagan or heretic, can baptize, provided the person observes the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does."

The East is strictly, almost rigidly, conservative, and the Eastern Churches display, with reference to all their ecclesiastical customs, the greatest aversion to departing from the traditional consuetudo. This is particularly the case with regard to baptism and the ceremonies connected with it. They adhere most exactly to their traditional ceremonies. Their Forma baptismi is very simple; the Latin translation of it is: " Baptizatur {baptizetur is also valid) servus (a) Dei N. in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti." The priest baptizing utters these words in either the liturgical language or in the vernacular, and this amount of familiarity with the Euchologium (Ritual) may be assumed in the least educated priests of the Eastern Churches, who all know and use this formula. It is certain too that they use natural water as the matter of baptism and not an artificially produced fluid of any kind. As many believed the water ought to be cold, Pope Eugenius IV. stated in the decree " Pro Armenis," already quoted: "The matter of this Sacrament is true and natural water; it does not matter whether it is cold or warm." In cold countries considerations of health induced people to use warm water; in fact some maintained that it ought to be warm.

What must we say of the Materia proxima, or of the union of matter and form in the Eastern Churches? In this respect there can be no question that baptism, as they administer it, is valid, for they still retain the ancient trina immersio, or (according to Denzinger, Ritus Orient., § 2) they use immersionem aspersione mixtam above the infant's head, so that it is impossible to doubt that a sufficient lotio realis et symbolica takes place in connection with the utterance of the short form of words.

It may be asked whether this Forma baptismi of the Eastern Church is sufficient.

At the reunion council of Florence in 1439 no objection was raised to the method of baptism used in the East from remote times, and in the decree Pro Armenis, Eugenius IV., after giving the Latin forma baptismi, goes on to say: "The form, however, is: Ego te baptizo, etc. Yet we do not deny that true Baptism is also effected by these words: Baptizatur talis servus Christi in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti; or: Baptizatur manibus meis talis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. For since the principal cause from which Baptism has its power is the Holy Trinity, while the minister who outwardly confers the Sacrament is instrumental, if the act exercised through the minister is expressed together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the Sacrament is effected." (Denzinger-Bannwart, 696.)

It is a matter of history that Novatian caused a schism in Rome about the middle of the Third Century; he found many followers in the East, who maintained: The faith of the minister is necessary for the validity of Baptism. In order to check the evil resulting from this doctrine, the Eastern Church prudenti oeconomia introduced a change in the form of baptism, so that baptizatur (βαπτίζεται) was used instead of ego te baptizo. This is the account given by the learned Peter Arcudius (Concord. Eccl. occid. et orient., 1. 1, c. 3, 8). The Latins derived their form of baptism from our Lord's word " Baptizate" (Matth. xxviii, 19); the Greeks from " Baptizamini" (Acts i, 5).

What has been said of the Churches that owe their origin to the schism of Constantinople, according to the Conc. Florentinum, applies, of course, equally to the schismatical Armenians, in case any of them wish to return to the Catholic Church; their baptism is valid.

All the Eastern Churches have a form for blessing water to be used at baptism: All Eastern Christians devoutly retain the blessing of baptismal water from the ancient and universal discipline of the Church. (Denzinger, Rit. Orient., § 1.)

The Roman Church has always respected the old ceremonies used as sacramentals that occur in the Eastern ritual of baptism; they take the place of those of the Latin Rituale. Hence no supplementary baptismal ceremonies are performed in the case of converts from any of the Churches that we have mentioned, although it seems desirable to perform them in that of converts from Protestantism, that they may receive these sacramentals, even if otherwise their Protestant baptism has proved to be valid, investigatione peracta.

The Catholic Church therefore has nothing to do with our convert Jovan in respect of his baptism, for all is in order.

Should a member of one of these schismatical bodies and a Catholic intend to enter into matrimony, there need be no doubt as to the valid baptism of the former. But in mixed marriages between Catholics and Protestants, the invalidity of the Protestant baptism frequently gives rise to a suspicion of impedimentum disparitatis cultus.—J. Danner, S.J.