according to actual orthodox its not enough and your first baptism was invalid so you have to be baptised again, larper convert

>>18241910
Depends on the priest, some won't baptize roman catholic converts for some reason

>>18241922
Because they know rebaptism is a sin, it's been anathamatized unless the formula used is not Trinitarian or the elements are lacking.

Were the people the Arians baptised subjected to a do-over just because the administrators had a heretical position?
No, there was never any mass rebaptism campaign.

In fact, so long as the form and elements are proper it literally doesn't matter if the person doing the baptism is an atheist.
Because the miracle isn't dependent on the virtue of any given minister, the grace inherent in the sacrament cannot be thwarted.

Hyperpartisan caesaropapist turk bootlicker semi-Arian autism has ramifications.

>>18241935
I see, that makes sense. But the roman catholics don't do immersion baptism sometimes? I wonder if that matters

threadly reminder the Council of Florence happened

reconciliation isn't something we have to do for the first time, it already happend
all it would take is for the schismatics to recognize the binding consensus which was arrived at during that council

>be orthodox regarding Arian baptisms
>this is fine

>be orthodox regarding Catholic baptisms, more than 1500 years later
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE NO NO NO NO ITS NOT VALID THEY DONT HAVE SACRAMENTS

This is not an exaggeration.
There are people out there who actually expect to be taken seriously that really do believe this.

>>18241936
Immersion vs pouring vs sprinkling is a midwit debate.

Maybe one is better than the other somehow, but nobody in their right mind would contest the validity of either.

>>18241954
>>18241935
Only the super trad Orthodox will rebaptize converts from Catholicism or Protestantism, like the Russian Orthodox or, even more rad trad, the "Genuine Orthodox". Greek and Antiochene Orthodox will usually not require this at all. As long as someone is baptized in the name of the Trinity then they'll accept that baptism. The Russians are basically Donatists. It's why they'll say Catholic orders are invalid because, even though they have perfectly legitimate apostolic succession, they "lack grace" according to them. But the Greek Orthodox don't really question Catholic orders or sacraments. Catholics accept baptism from literally anyone as long as its done in the name of the Trinity. The only exception is Mormons because their conception of God is so radically different.

>>18241966
>they "lack grace"
It makes sense that they'd lack grace since their priests are all paedos and their popes are heretic divas - I'm still waiting for Pope Katy Perry to unite all religions under Rome

>>18241940
How would that work? Vatican I and II would have to be accepted by the Orthodox? Seems impossible really

>>18241981
That's a good point, dogmas like papal infallibility and the Annunciation might be sticking points which might prevent full unity.

But despite this the RCC still affirms the autocephalous eastern orthodox are still part of the one true church, as their sacraments are valid.

Not really an expert, but since the east did not have representation at those councils, a new council would have to be convened to deal with this problem.
Here's the thing, the council of Florence isn't suddenly void just because other councils have happened since that don't include several of the parties that were present for Florence.
So to my mind, and I could be completely wrong about this, reconciliation is still possible under accession to the same council. Which was only rejected post-hoc by the east even though they agreed to participate and came to the consensus of reconciliation.

In fact, accepting the council of Florence would have to be the formal first step of any reconciliation process. As soon as you've accepted Florence, you're effectively already fully reconciled since it's the same church as it was then. If reconciliation was good enough back then, the same applies today.

However, reconciling these dogmatic problems could require some kind of magisterial inclusivity. Maybe there is some kind of way to bifurcate the teaching office in a way that gives a degree of independence or representation to the east. Or a kind of special sphere of operations for the patriarchs that operates in a way similar to the papal office. Kind of just spit balling here, anyone who knows more about the details of church governance could tell you more about what's possible. It's complicated.