As a layman, I cannot say I feel personally invested in the question as to how those outside the Church ought to be received after their catechesis. I am not a bishop or priest and really have no say on the matter. My interest in many of these questions is purely historical.
Then again, I should care. After all, I was received into the Church. I was once asked to decide upon my own mode of reception. No one wants to choose wrong. I was told years ago, by an OCA priest whose formation was at Saint Tikhon’s, that he preferred performing a “rebaptism”* (i.e. baptism in the Orthodox form with all the necessary prayers, exorcisms, and three full immersions). His reasoning was pastoral–people’s consciences commonly nag them two or three years into the faith that somehow maybe they were not really baptized and therefore not really Christian.
*“Rebaptism” is being used due to common usage, despite it being a pejorative of sorts. Those who favor baptism for those who had improper form reason that a baptism has not occurred yet and only a baptism with proper form is in fact baptism. Saint Cyprian actually rejects the notion that he favored rebaptism on the grounds that he was baptizing people truly for the first time in Letter 72, Par 1.
Fast forward six years. I am at my Godparents’ daughter’s graduation party. I am not sure what that makes her to me, my “Godsister?” Levity aside, the same priest attends the party. Imagine my surprise when he told me something along the lines of, “I don’t recommend rebaptism anymore after reading an article on Ancient Insights.”* While this is a good article and it is worth mentioning that Theoria’s work on the subject is also well-researched, I must emphasize that this priest in the real world changed his mind because of the research of a neophyte (Ben of “Ancient Insights” was a relatively new convert when he wrote the article) and an anonymous personality, “Ubi Petrus” (though I am certain he has a few more years on him, but his actual communion is unknown). Hence, for all the complaints that “the laity are being misled by controversial people on the internet they don’t know,” the reality is priests and bishops also use the internet and likewise read controversial people. They make big decisions picking up information from sources other than Brill, Saint Vladimir’s Quarterly, and etcetera. Let’s drop the ivory tower elitism!
*I’ve since been emailed by this priest and he remembers now that it might have been another article, Vladimir Yakovlev’s “Sacramental Rigourism: Tradition or Modern Phenomena?,” an article which in its acknowledgements cites “Codex Justinianus [Ben of Ancient Insights], Seraphim Hamilton [blogger], Ubi Petrus [anonymous personality], the late Archimandrite Ambrosius Pogodin, Sergei Fedorov, Petr Pashkov [scholar as well as social media influencer], as well as the folks at Aletheia [the message board?].” Apparently this article was shared on an OCA Clergy group in 2021.
Honestly, I think the preceding is fine. Our clergy are mostly professionally trained at this point (though I am happy to come across a priest here or there that was ordained despite not having what has become a customary seminary education–I find this quaint in a good way). So, they theoretically know how to read a “quote mine,” check quotes and translations, understand the relevance of the quotes given, and etcetera.
Based on my own perusal of the subject, I initially did not understand the whole “rebaptist” view. The canons seem to plainly allow for the reception of those baptized outside the Church. So, one may reason in their simplicity, what is the point of rebaptizing them? So many Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and etcetera have been brought into the Church without baptism and the sky hasn’t fallen…
Over the years, the more I attend services and read the Patristics, I am beginning to realize that such a pragmatist view of the question is really not the right way to go about it. To quote Chris Rock (warning for language), “You can drive with your feet if you want to, it don’t make it a good idea.” In other words, just because something is possible (for reasons we will get into in a moment), this does not mean it should be normative or done lightly.
A good example of this is Saint Hippolytus’ teaching in Apostolic Tradition that technically ordinations do not need to be performed on confessors:
If a confessor has been placed in chains for the Name of the Lord, hands are not laid upon him for the office of deacon or elder. He has the honor of the office of an elder through his confession. If he is instituted as a bishop, then hands will be laid upon him. (9:1)
Clearly, there were priests serving liturgy in Rome without ordinations and even episcopal ordinations are known to have been performed mystically (without the man ordained bishop physically present) according to hagiographic tradition. The canons (particularly Canon 8 of Nicea I) permit the reception of Novatian clergy simply by confession and repentance–and this is nearly 100 years after their schism where surely all of their episcopal succession was in schism. Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite makes it clear that the preceding is the correct interpretation in a footnote to the canon:
The laying on of hands here is not ordination, as one might perhaps suppose, but it consists in the action of those in holy orders laying their hand on the heads of such heretics, and thus accepting them as penitents.
Canon 95 of Trullo clearly stipulates that chrismation would still occur. In effect, they are treated as apostates from Orthodoxy and not those outside the Church. Now, I want to be specific. This does not mean the Novatianists were in the Church any more than the Uniates are when they are received (in most cases) in a similar way by the Russian Orthodox Church. Rather, they are treated as such. When I say, “Mi casa es su casa,” I may be treating you like family, but I am not legally recognizing you own my house.
And so, where the preceding has led me over the years has been a greater appreciation of the pastoral aspect of canons (reading Canon 102 of Trullo is a must). This ironically has brought me to the original position of the priest I spoke about shortly before. The answer whether one baptizes or not is ultimately pastoral. The canons make pastoral judgments oftentimes, but this should not be confused to mean that the ideal does not remain as such.
This is why On the Reception of the Heterodox Into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria is so important. It does not list an author (it simply identifies itself as “an Orthodox Ethos publication.”) Nevertheless, it presents a copious amount of research to demonstrate that, to distill its thesis, the distinction between akriveia and economia (exactitude applied to what is correct and discretion in loosening such requirements) is in the fathers and canons. To have the fullness of faith, we need to be inclusive of this aspect of the Orthodox inheritance (which as the book shows in its eighth chapter is not an invention of Saint Nicodemus, but has a firm Patristic basis beginning explicitly with Saint Basil the Great).
Additionally, an important point the book makes which is often neglected by “the other side” is that economia cannot be lawless. The canons and Patristic consensus govern, for example, we ought not to be receiving people with single immersion baptisms (i.e. like the Baptists) without baptizing such catechumens with correct form. Sure, Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas (of blessed memory) was supposedly received despite having such a baptism (though better evidence suggests this is not true). Saint Gregory the Great (as the book points out) likewise allegedly permitted the practice for a period (this was disputed by Alcuin, who accused the Spanish of forging this letter). In any event, this goes back to the Rockism before: “You can drive with your feet if you want to, it don’t make it a good idea.” Sure, it can be done just like we can close Saint Tikhon’s, Holy Trinity, and whatever other seminary and send all seminarians on a trip to Saudi Arabia–whoever survives does not need ordination according to Saint Hippolytus’ teaching. Indeed, God is not bound by His own rules–but we are! These aberrations speak to God’s grace, but do not offer us the license for complete lawlessness and to ignore Sacred Tradition.
This is why I cannot help but wonder why anyone alleges that Saint Niceodemus is an outsider, extremist, or whatever else on the question. His position seems to me to be very moderate, the via media we ought to follow. In short, the canons delineate two sides of the same spectrum and economy can be exercised according to specific rubrics and pastoral need. In fact, due to those presuming there is salvific grace in the sacraments outside the Church, something that those saints who oppose rebaptism from Augustine to New Martyr Daniel Sysoev categorically and explicitly reject, the Church may be finding itself in the pastoral position to demand rigor. As the book articulately argues, popular confusion in the present certainly provides justification for it.
In certain fine points, the book has some pleasant surprises for the reader. I was surprised, if not a little scandalized, about the details surrounding the Council of Moscow 1666-7 (though I am convinced much more needs to be made available from the original languages to make this council comprehensible to us). The defense of Saint Cyprian contains the first published assertion of Saint Stephen of Rome’s practice being an innovation in his own day and quickly reformed, something my own research as shown in detail. The book also cleverly turns the tables on those who cite the Council of Jerusalem 1672, as the said council actually demands correct baptismal form.
A good book review should always have its quibbles and critiques. Though in recent years even saints sometimes write with not a lot of caution concerning questionable things about previous saints outside the Patristic consensus, it is not something I personally approve of as my reading more strongly emphasizes the first-millennium saints where such caution was abundant. The book sometimes very plainly calls saints wrong, incorrect, etcetera which taken to it’s logical extent may lead to a fundamentally Protestant approach to Sacred Tradition where we cherrypick what we like and decry what we don’t. To be fair, Saint Cyprian has been on the receiving end of similar treatment–but I think we need to rise above this and allow all the saints to challenge our thinking. Even surface level contradictions may “complement” one another (as Father Daniel Sysoev sagely teaches), helping us understand the fullness of Sacred Tradition. (see Section 19 in Instructions for the Fisher of Men)
Additionally, there is a critique of a couple Pan-Orthodox synods (Jasy 1642 and Jerusalem 1672). In short, the book takes issue with their use of Latin theological concepts and acceptance of Roman Catholic baptism. The former is something I do not find overtly problematic, as over time the Church has baptized many things used outside of the Church and appropriated an Orthodox meaning. Interestingly, the book leaves the door open for an interpretation of at least the latter council that is more canonically restrictive than what is popularly understood, as Dositheus (the brainchild of the latter council) believed that baptisms must retain proper form and believed that many Roman Catholics still retained this correct form (three full immersions). In fact, Dositheus described the Roman Catholic practice of baptism via aspersion (i.e. sprinkling) as “mortal sin”(!), something extremely inconvenient to those who try to use his confession as a proof text against the defenders of the akriveia-economia distinction being upheld for the sacrament of baptism. Hence, what problem do these councils really pose to the book’s thesis if they presumed upon correct form in the baptisms they considered valid? Personally, I cannot see it. I see raising questions about the legitimacy of these councils as potentially harmful to their position and to a fuller understanding of the ecclesiology of Orthodoxy at large. However, much is to be said that these councils are not liturgically commemorated and lack popular reception among the laity. A good study can be made as to whether episcopal backing for dogmatization is sufficient, as the pan-episcopal receptions of these councils in of themselves, does not seem to settle the matter categorically.
Lastly, the book does not focus too much on the pastoral aspect of a large controversy in our day, corrective rebaptisms. Here, I see the issue of “correctives” as pertaining to the same pastoral concerns that the canons address with akriveia and economia. Saint Pope Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Pope Sixtus II of Rome on the question of someone who has been in the Church for years and communing, but under pangs of conscience due to his baptism being outside the Church (it is described as having wrong form and blasphemies, perhaps a Gnostic single immersion baptism in the name of Christ alone). To address his concerns, Dionysius gave the obvious response to him: “the long course of communion had been sufficient.” In other words, he was already communing His flesh and blood, he is a full Christian. There is no reason to worry. Dionysius ends what I believe is on an intentionally ambiguous note, that even still “he makes no end of his wailing, and shrinks from approaching to the table” due to the same pangs of conscience. (The episode can be read here on p. 221-222) As the book adequately addresses, Dionysius saw himself as a supporter of Cyprian. The point, though put diplomatically and passive-aggressively, is that it would be “unpastoral” and unfeeling to not ultimately give in to the demand of the individual. Just as deciding between akriveia and economia is a pastoral judgment call that has to take account of these real world things, it appears even the issue of correctives is the same in Dionysius’ eyes.
Father Seraphim Rose, who is on his way to wider canonization, likewise addresses the issue a few times:
This “zeal not according to understanding,” about which Archbishop Averky has warned in his sermons, is by no means limited to baptizing those coming from other Orthodox jurisdictions or (most shocking of all) re-baptizing those who have already been receiving Holy Communion in our Church for months or years…We have heard of a few mistaken “re-baptisms” in America and have asked several of our bishops about them. In every case, as it turns out, the diocesan bishop was not informed of the circumstances of the case. Recently some wished to see such a “rebaptism” performed in our Western American diocese, but our Archbishop Anthony wisely refused to allow it, in which we gave him our full support—for indeed, it would have been tantamount to an open declaration of the absence of Grace in the Greek Archdiocese.(Letter on April 18/May 1, 1976)
The preceding shows that in the subsequent quotes, “re-baptizing” is a reference to corrective baptisms of those already in the Church. Furthermore, Seraphim’s resistance is due to the fact they were corrective-baptizing those in the Greek Church which was still in Orthodox communion. This is quite a bit different than correctives for those brought in without a baptism in the Orthodox Church over suspicions concerning improper form.
We are not fanatically against the “rebaptism” of those who insist on it, in cases where the bishop approves—but this should not be allowed to set a fanatical “tone” to our Orthodoxy, which is what shocked Andrew. (Letter on June 2/15, 1976)
Here, Father Seraphim obviously does not favor the practice, but clearly does not consider the practice sacrilegious. Instead, it is a practice whose existence is tolerable given it does not “set a fanatical ‘tone'” of hyper-rigorism.
[W]e have heard of the furor aroused by the Guildford “rebaptisms,” and this troubles us—not for the sake of the baptisms themselves (for our Church has been quite broad in its acceptance of different degrees of economy and strictness) as because of the tone of over-zealous “correctness” with which some people, at least, have greeted them. (Letter on June 24/July 7, 1976)
Again, Father Seraphim makes clear he has no issue against corrective baptisms, but against the mindset of those pushing them–precisely on the same grounds.
In all of the preceding, he is not talking about debate surrounding “rebaptizing” catechumens with a Protestant or Roman Catholic background. This became the norm in ROCOR (which he was part of) after 1971. Seraphim’s reticence is explained by zealots who wanted to rebaptize those who were brought into the Church by the the mainstream Greek Church and whatnot. This explains Seraphim’s critical tone.
However, one must notice the substance of his objections–it’s not over correctives more generally. He thinks that they are not (overly) objectionable if they have episcopal approval. Seraphim considers “economy and strictness” as the means one decides the question. He believes the bishop should be petitioned for it (which reveals the same sort of pastoral concern Dionysius was citing).
My concerns about corrective baptisms are two fold. First, I believe ultimately we will have canonized saints landing on both sides of the question (Archbishop Dmitri comes out categorically against it in one situation) and we will need to see what is legitimate in both views, and how they complement one another. Second, there is a pastoral aspect that should not be ignored. Those who favor the practice are not claiming those received in the Church, perhaps even with wrong form, are not Orthodox Christians. Rather, they are looking to right what was wronged. It seems to me in bad taste to reduce to mere pragmatism (“is it really necessary for salvation?”) something that is personal and different for every person. Years ago, Cyprian was asked rhetorically by Pope Stephen:
What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?
Cyprian responded:
The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. Nevertheless it does not follow that, because there was error at one time, there must always be error. (Epistle 72, Par 23)
Cyprian’s response to whether such correct reception is necessary for salvation is not necessarily, because we always presume upon God’s mercy. However, just because something is not absolutely necessary it does not mean we can act lawlessly. His response is sensible and it makes sense to apply it. It is also much more nicely put than Chris Rock’s earlier quip.
In conclusion, I believe the book is a worthy and necessary contribution to the subject of baptism. More than a few clergy will take notice. The book brings up subjects that need to be discussed and heeded. It is with regret that those intent upon breaking down dialogue will cast the book as “extreme,” “fundamentalist,” and other slurs. This shuts down a much needed conversation. On the Reception of the Heterodox is a necessary contribution to the dialogue we need to be having about baptism.
Thank you for your insightful review and lucid writing, as always, Mr. Truglia. You convey the clear logic behind the true position of methods of reception, logic that shines through all of the church’s doctrines, logic that synchronizes with the human experience. Legalism and apathy are anti-human; true akrivia and economia are amenable to our needs. God is truly with us in the church. In this synopsis, you have brought up many interesting sources that are new to me, even though I’ve been following this question here and there as a layman for a while. I’ll be following these sources further, and I’ll be purchasing the book.
I am thankful for my baptism upon my reception into Orthodoxy. I have deep faith in the presence of transformative grace in this holy sacrament, even after my sprinkle “baptism” by a pagan priest of Rome. I have never had a doubt that an Orthodox baptism is always fitting for an Orthodox believer.
A final word of thanks to Orthodox Ethos for addressing this question. The position conveyed mirrors perfectly that of each and every one of the saintly but decidedly non-academic spiritual mentors in my life and the inspirational men and woman of God I’ve met in my travels. It’s a glorious thing, and a comfort to my heart, how well things like this always line up. Mystical healing in the church is true education.
John
For further historical context concerning “corrective baptism”:
“What then, say they, will become of those who, coming from the heretics, have been received without the baptism of the Church? If they have departed this life, they are reckoned in the number of those who have been catechumens indeed among us, but have died before they were baptized,—no trifling advantage of truth and faith, to which they had attained by forsaking error, although, being prevented by death, they had not gained the consummation of grace. But they who still abide in life should be baptized with the baptism of the Church, that they may obtain remission of sins, lest by the presumption of others they remain in their old error, and die without the completion of grace. But what a crime is theirs on the one hand who receive, or on the other, theirs who are received, that their foulness not being washed away by the laver of the Church, nor their sins put away, communion being rashly seized, they touch the body and blood of the Lord, although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord!'”
Saint Firmilian of Cæsarea, “Epistle LXXIV: Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen. A.D. 256.,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5, ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D. & James Donaldson, LL.D. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publications, 1999), 395.
You forgot to mention the most important and the most well-researched article on this subject, the one by the Arche-Athanatos:
Sacramental Rigourism: Tradition or Modern Phenomenon?
This book was initially written as a response to that article, but it grew into a 450 page text. As some of its critics agree, On the Reception of the Heterodox thoroughly addresses that article.
That article in reality is simply an expansion of Ben’s work at Ancient Insights, which ironically quoted from an article of mine with excerpts of St Peter Mogila, so I find myself into the mix inadvertently!
“God is not bound by His own rules–but we are!” I appreciate this insight, Patrick. Now also apply this to your article about the felicity of those who have not received baptism at all. 😉 Great article!
Well, that was Saint Cyprian’s point which I end the article on. There are those who technically were not baptized, but received by the Church–Cyprian presumes upon God’s mercy. Even so, we ought to still require proper baptism.
🙌 Amen. Keep up the great work.
This topic really exemplifies Proverbs 18:17 for me.
“The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.”
The latest I read on the matter is this article and even though I had already been content to accept the OE case and began reading this with skepticism, it seems to be far stronger.
https://bible.com/bible/114/pro.18.17.NKJVhttps://theoriatv.substack.com/p/rebaptism-patristic-consensus-or?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Everyone is more learned on the matter than I, and you seem to be the most neutral in tone since you show respect for both Fr Peter and Ben. I wonder could you host a gentle discussion between them, to explore the two sides of the narrow path that we should not stray beyond – pharisaical rigorism or ecumenistic use of unjustified economia? I am concerned that fanbases become entrenched to the detriment of Orthodoxy and those who seek it.
We’ll need to pray on this for obvious reasons. I think this matter can be smoothed over if we look at our saints with love–if we automatically conclude the saints represent to irreconcilable sides of a coin, then we don’t have a way forward. If we are convinced both sides have something to teach us, then we have the fullness of the Orthodox Christian faith.
100% Craig. I’ve said this to both “sides” (I don’t see the division) – that I think both are warning and citing warnings about opposite errors at the boundaries of the two sides of the narrow path but I am only a baby Orthodox commenter. You are the only Orthodox personality who I have seen indicate peace with keeping both positions in tension, although I tend to think Fr Heers does in fact, and I am sure many who are silent do.
I just don’t like to see so many “fans” ignore the fact that truth lies on both sides and that the opposite to an error is most often the opposite error. But yes, you are right, I will spend more time praying about it.
Satan sows division, and so when we are divisive, we know the source. We must fight it.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it appears Fr. Paul Yerger of the Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church in Mississippi recounts Archbishop Dmitri stating he was baptized upon reception into Orthodoxy at the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Dallas after a period of catechism (https://www.holyres.net/remembrances-of-fr-paul-yerger/ ; ~Paragraph 34). I know this is a small matter compared to the larger discussion here (Which I really appreciated), but I thought I’d mention it since many sources discussing Archbishop Dmitri seem to ultimately refer back to the Wikipedia article emphasizing his single immersion baptism in his Baptist upbringing while merely stating he was received into Orthodoxy without detailing how so.
I’ll have to make this change!
One more thing to note that is that Archbishop Dmitri himself suspended two of his own priests who received or conducted “Corrective baptisms” on Mt. Athos after decades of being in the Church. His letter concerning that matter can be read here: https://www.oca.org/holy-synod/statements/archbishop-dmitri/letter-concerning-the-recent-suspension-of-two-priests.
I personally will share no opinion on how converts ought to be received, other than to say that converts should consult their priests and bishops and not laity on the internet. Whether we like it or not, and as you point out, throughout history there have been great saints and church fathers who have taken different views on how to receive converts and remained within the Church. What concerns does concern me is the growing number of laity ‘Theologians’ –on both ‘sides’ — who are so sure of their own research and academic success that they just have to stamp out the other practices within the Church once and for all. Of course I don’t think you fall in this group, and I really appreciated your discussion that avoided the extremes on either side.
Father Thomas Soroka and Father Alexander Rentel, joined briefly by Father Justin Patterson, discussed the history and pastoral sides of this topic in depth on Ancient Faith not too long ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZK5gMtzF9I . Since I don’t think anyone would think of these OCA priests as extremists on either side I thought I would link their discussion.
Thank you. I hope people look into the reasoning, as this gives us the perspective of the saints.
I want to reflect more on this. I think what Vladika Dmitri did makes sense. It’s one thing out of pastoral condescension to do this with the laity. It’s another with clergy which throws their flocks into doubt over their own baptisms, eucharist, confessions, etcetera. I can see why when bringing Arians or Novatians back, they tried to streamline it as much as possible. Because for the simple laity, it can become a huge issue if they doubt their own Christianity.
I want to add that I am speculating something very general, not any specific individual. If a bishop prohibits his priests from seeking rebaptism for the pastoral reason I pose, I see wisdom in that.
Soroka, Rentel, Justin Patterson, are know for their rabbid Ecumenism and place academic “theologians” above the Fathers of the Church consistently. Patterson goes down the list saying why every Saint from Cyprian to Nikoodemos got it wrong but insists that his pseudo academics didn’t. They fall in line with Public Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy in Dialogue. To be expected out of the Metropolia.
There are some solid priests in the metropolia! Fr Zechariah Lynch, for example… a staunch anti-ecumenist