Baptism or just chrismation to become an Orthodox Christian?

PapaNiko wrote: Here is an interesting letter from Bishop Tihkon of San Francisco and the West: http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html Recently, I've become aware of a lot of discussion and controversy in Orthodox circles here in America on the topic of the proper way to receive, for example, Roman Catholics and Lutherans, into the Orthodox Church, and how Roman Catholic and Lutheran clergy become Orthodox clergy. While it is on the one hand inspiring to observe our clergy and people engaged in thought, discussion, even debate on holy topics, it is also disturbing to me when some of those engaged in these discussions and debates seem to minimize or give only a passing, slight nod in the direction of the practices that have been passed on to us, and seem to feel that any theological conclusions they may reach on these topics must be reflected in practice. It is most perplexing, too, that the labels of conservative and liberal, so inappropriate to Christian, as opposed to political, thought, are applied to one or other position on the topic, frequently in a way completely contradictory to the meaning of those political labels. The practice of our Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and that of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America (\"The Metropolia\"), as likewise that of the Russian Mission and Missionary Diocese and Archdiocese that preceded them, in the matter of the reception of heretics is very clear: it is the practice that obtains and has obtained in the Russian Church for centuries, at least since the time of Peter the Great. It may be found and studied in the Service Books of the Church of Russia [in both its \"native\" conformation (The Church of Russia) and \"foreign\" (Abroad) conformation]. According, for example, to the Book of Needs published at Vladimirova between the wars by the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia, that differs in no respects from previous and subsequent Books of Needs published by The Church of Russia, Roman Catholics are received, after undergoing the Office for the Reception Converts printed in the same book, immediately into Communion and are imparted the Holy Mysteries at the ensuing Liturgy without further ado, unless they have not been Chrismated (i.e., are coming from the Latin Rite of the Roman communion and not from the Uniates), in which case they would be chrismated. No provision at all is provided in the Service Books to receive Roman Catholics in the manner of receiving Jews and Mohammedans, i.e., to baptize them. The prescribed practice printed in our Service Books has been in force and active use for centuries, and it cannot be considered only a temporary episode of Economy in the life of the Church. When candidates for the LayingonofHands to the honorable Priesthood promise to observe the liturgical order of the Church, they are promising (failing a contrary directive from their Bishop) to follow the prescribed rites printed in the Service Books. And the overturning of the prescribed practice without a preceding directive from a Synod or council would be an example of innovation. Oddly enough, some that would advocate this consider themselves to be \"conservative\" My own predecessors in the see of San Francisco followed these Service Books. They are the Service Books of the Church of Saint Innocent and of Saint Tikhon. They are the Service Books of the Church of such luminaries as the evermemorable Metropolitans Antony (Khrapovitsky) and Anastassy (Gribanovski). I know of no oral or written guidance given by any of the foregoing luminaries altering the received practice in this matter. Saint Elisabeth (Elizaveta Fyodorovna), recently added to the calendar of Saints of the Russian Church, was received into the Orthodox Church (as was likewise her sister, the sainted Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna) from the state German Lutheran Church where she had been baptized as a child, through the Rite of the Reception of Heretics with ensuing Chrismation--without a new Baptism As I commented on the reception of two sainted German princesses into the Orthodox Church when discussing the reception of Laity, I would like to point to the reception of St. Alexis Toth (Tovt) of Minneapolis and WilkesBarre. St. Alexis was received according to the rite outlined in the attached document, i.e., by Confession of Faith, Penance, and vesting in the Altar after the Cherubicon. How could it be otherwise? Can one imagine Bishop Vladimir or Bishop Nicholas, the two Russian hierarchs of the day, contravening the established practice of the Russian Church and insisting the St. Alexis be ordained according to the formula for ordaining Laity? (And I may remark that St. Alexis came to the Russian Orthodox bishop in San Francisco in the first place because a Roman Catholic hierarch did not recognize his Priesthood! One may only imagine how history might now differ if the Russian Orthodox Bishop in San Francisco had also refused to recognize his Priesthood and that of many subsequent Clergy of the Church!) Dearly beloved and esteemed brother Priests and Shepherds! Let's always be governed in our conduct by the Tradition of our Church and not by the temporary passions of the day that may splash like waves of the sea of life against the hull of the holy Ship of our salvation, Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let's preserve what has been handed on to us! Neither I nor His Beatitude, nor any of the Hierarchs of the Orthodox Church in America are reckless opponents of Church Order or Discipline. We do not \"take our cues\" from anything but what we have received. The Orthodox practice of receiving Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans as described by the Serbian Bishop Nikodim and the Orthodox reception of Roman Catholic priests as outlined in Nikol'sky are not any sort of indications that our Hierarchy is hostage to ecumenism, branch theory, relativism, positivism, scholasticism, liberalism, indifferentism or any other \"ism\" conflicting in any way with the Holy Tradition, but a sign of their obedience.