baptism and reception of people into the orthodox church pts 1 and 2

7/28/2019 Baptism and Reception of People Into the Orthodox Church Pts 1 and 2

1/33

Baptism and Reception of People into the Orthodox Church Pts 1 and 2

Baptism and Reception of People into the Orthodox Church - Part 1

Should Protestants be re-baptised when they join the Orthodox Church?

Is the Australian Antiochian Orthodox practise of chrismation ofProtestants the correct Orthodox tradition?

1. The Antochian Orthodox practice

On the Reception of Converts: Father Matthew Thurman (USA) writes:

Often the whole question of how one is received into the Orthodox Faith in the

Antiochian Archdiocese is handled gets kicked around. Apparently, there is still

confusion-both in the minds of some laity and clergy alike-as to when it is

appropriate to baptise a convert into the faith and when it is appropriate to

receive a convert by Chrismation only. To clarify what our Archdiocese's policy is,

I am reproducing the relevant text "Policy on Baptism of Converts" from our

official Archdiocese service book The Service for the Chrismation of Converts into

the Orthodox Faith:

The Archdiocese policy is that of the long-standing policy of the AntiochianPatriarchate. That is, a person seeking entry into the Holy Orthodox Church who:

1. has been previously baptized with water,

2. in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

3. in a religious body which professes Trinitarian doctrine, and

4. who can provide an authentic, official, and verifiable certificate of

said baptism,

is to be received, after a proper period of catechesis, confession of sins and a

formal profession of the Orthodox faith, by the Mystery of Chrismation. In cases

of doubt, the priest must refer to the Metropolitan.

Source:

http://homepage.mac.com/gthurman/iblog/C735571802/E20060316223159/index.html


2/33

2. But is this just an Antiochian view? What about the Greek Orthodox

view?

"Reception of Converts: Converts to our Faith, coming to us from the Roman

Catholic Church and the Protestant churches that baptize with a Trinitarian

formula are received into our Church through the Sacrament of Chrismation.

They are not received through the Sacrament of Baptism. Any one that receives

such a convert through Baptism and not Chrismation will be immediately

suspended and brought to a Spiritual Court hearing. This is not a new policy or

directive. No one has the authority or right to arbitrarily

change this practice of our Church."

Excerpt from a May 19, 1997 "Memorandum" by Metropolitan Maximos of

Pittsburgh (Greek Archdiocese) to his diocesan clergy.

Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx

Also, the official Greek Orthodox website for North America says:

After the period of instruction, there is a Service of Reception into theChurch. If you are converting from a non-Christian religion, you will make aprofession of Faith, be baptized and chrismated. If you are being receivedfrom a Church which has a similarity of beliefs with Orthodoxy and you havebeen properly baptized and confirmed, you will participate in a briefService of Anointing (Chrismation) which signifies reconciliation with theOrthodox Church. The reception of Holy Communion is always seen as theconsummation of union with the Church.

Source: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7073.asp

3. What about the Russian Church?

Fr. Alexander writes:

The most recent legislation prohibiting the re-baptism of those Protestantswhose baptism is performed by triple immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity


3/33

was the decree of the Spiritual Council of 1718.

Other decrees and directions later promulgated by Church authorities were

based on the above two decrees. These can systematically be given as follows:

The blessing [permission] of the diocesan hierarch is not required for eachinstance of uniting of Roman Catholics, Armenians, Nestorians, Lutherans and

Calvinists to the Orthodox Church. Only in special situations and in the event of a

mass conversion must the hierarch be notified in order to obtain his blessing and

instructions.

Joining the Orthodox Church is preceded by instruction and affirmation of the

teachings of the Orthodox Church, with the learning of certain prayers. Then the

actual appropriate rite follows by which the non-Orthodox person is received into

the Church. Although the following is repetitious, we feel that it is appropriate to

reiterate the legislation of the Russian Church on this subject.

Non-Orthodox persons are received by one of three rites:

The third rite - repentance of previous errors, repudiation of those errors and a

confession of the Orthodox Faith. To be used for persons converting from the

Roman Catholic faith and Armenians, provided that the former have received

confirmation from their bishop, and that the latter were chrismated by their

clergy. If they have not been confirmed or if there is any doubt as to whether

they were confirmed, they should be anointed with the Holy Chrism.

The second rite - repentance, repudiation of heresies, confession of the Orthodox

Faith and chrismation. To be used for the reception of Lutherans, Calvinists and

Anglicans (Episcopalians). Lutherans and Calvinists, because they do not have

the sacrament of chrismation and do not have a clergy with apostolic succession.

Anglicans, because the apostolic succession of their clergy is questionable, as

was noted by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow.

The first rite - baptism and chrismation. To be used for the reception of pagans,

Jews, Muslims and those sectarians that do not believe in the Holy Trinity nor

perform a baptism by triple immersion in the name of the Persons of the HolyTrinity.

So, to return to the subject at hand, we repeat that the Patriarchate of

Constantinople and its Exarchates in America and in Europe have adopted that

practice for the reception of non-Orthodox to Orthodoxy, which the Greeks call

"Russian," and effectively rejected the decision of the 1756 Council of

Constantinople (which was motivated by intolerance) and the explanation in the

Pedalion.

Thus, in the "Guide for the Orthodox in Connection with Contacts with the Non-


4/33

Orthodox Churches," published in 1966 by the Standing Conference of Canonical

Orthodox Bishops in America, recommended for guidance by the clergy of our

Orthodox Churches, the following rule is given:

"Upon the reception into the Orthodox Church of one who converts of his own

will from non-Orthodoxy, the priest receives the candidate by means of one ofthree rites, prescribed by the Quinisext Ecumenical Council: by means of

Baptism, Chrismation or the confession of faith, depending on the case."

In the "Instructions for the Relations with Non-Orthodox Churches," published by

the same Conference in 1972, we read the same rule concerning the reception of

the non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church, i.e., "Those non-Orthodox

converting to Orthodoxy who were baptized in their churches can be received

without a repetition of baptism if such could be accepted by the Orthodox, i.e.,

by means of chrismation or the confession of the Orthodox

Faith, according to the rite appropriate for the given situation."

This rite is found in the "Guidelines" of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in

America, pp. 53-55.

Source:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm

4. What about the historic traditions of the Church?

Archimandrite Ambrosius writes:

In contemporary times there are two distinct understandings of how to receive non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church.

The first method, which Greeks refer to as "Russian" consists of dividing non-

Orthodox into three categories for the purposes of conversion. In the firstcategory, those who convert are baptized. In the second, they are chrismated. In

the third, they are received by the rite of repentance, a repudiation of heresy

and confession of the Orthodox Faith. As has been demonstrated above, this

practice is based on the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, on the direct

authority of St. Mark of Ephesus, the Constantinople Council of 1484, the

decisions of the Moscow Councils of 1655 and especially of 1667, the decisions of

the Holy Council of 1718 as well as later decisions and directives of the Holy

Ruling Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is true that there was a time in

the Russian Church when Roman Catholics (and Protestants) were received into

Orthodoxy by means of baptism, but throughout the thousand year history of theRussian Church this was only in effect for 45 to 47 years after which that practice


5/33

of receiving all non-Orthodox without distinction was condemned and repealed

once and for all. As a result, three forms or rites were developed for receiving

non-Orthodox into the bosom of the Orthodox Church.

In the second method, any and allnon-Orthodox are received by baptism followed by

chrismation. This was adopted by the Greeks at the Council of Constantinople in1756 and is described in the Pedalion.

Not a single non-Greek Orthodox Church adopted this practice. Instead, the non-Greek Orthodox Churches firmly adhering to that practice which is designated as"Russian."

In recent times, the Patriarchate of Constantinople rescinded the use of the secondmethod and now receives non-Orthodox by means of the "Russian" rite.

Source: http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

5. Conclusion

The clearest conclusion is that the traditional Orthodox practice is to chrismateProtestants rather than baptise them. This is the current practice of the EcumenicalPatriachate and almost all Orthodox jurisdictions across the whole world. It is historic

traditional practice of the Orthodox Church. The minority of Orthodox who argue forre-baptism are in fact innovating away from the tradition.

Metropolitan Pauls statement is possibly the most fitting conclusion:

The acceptance of the converts unto our Antiochian Orthodoxy is the long-

standing policy of the Antiochian Patriarchate:

1. If he/she had previously been baptized with water2. If the baptism was conducted in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit3. In a religious body which professes Trinitarian doctrine and4. To provide an authentic, official and verifiable certificate of baptism.

is to be received, after a proper period of catechesis, confession of sins and a

formal profession of the Orthodox faith, by the Mystery of Chrismation. In cases

of doubt, the priest must refer to the Metropolitan.

6. Further details


6/33

Archimandrite Ambrosius and Fr. Alexander above mentioned a few points in the

historic development of views of baptism of Protestants and other non-Orthodox.

There is a lot of complex historical material which leads to the same conclusions

as above. Even the most pro-rebaptism authors concede that receiving

genuine Christians by chrismation is the historical tradition. Most of the debate is

over the issue of validity of non-Orthodox baptism. See my Part 2 paper forfurther details. Also for many more articles see:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx

See Part 2 below

Fr. John DAlton

Baptism and Reception of People into the Orthodox

Church Part2

(More historic and theological material flowing on from Part 1)As Father Matthew Thurman (USA) writes Often the whole question of how

one is received into the Orthodox Faith in the Antiochian Archdiocese ishandled gets kicked around. Apparently, there is still confusion-both in theminds of some laity and clergy alike-as to when it is appropriate to baptisea convert into the faith and when it is appropriate to receive a convert byChrismation only.

This document contains a series of articles and links coming from the more strict end

of the Orthodox Church. I have chosen these articles because they even though theyare more strict they still point to the conclusions in Part 1. For those small minorityof Orthodox who would reject the Part 1 conclusions as too liberal, this documentshould provide evidence that even very strict Orthodox still allow for chrismation-only of Protestants.

Many other Orthodox leaders have a more liberal view, which still agrees with thePart 1 conclusions. In reality this liberal view is the traditional view and also is themainstream view held by the numerically overwhelmingly largest part of the church.For example see:

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chrismation

http://www.goarch.org/en/news/releases/articles/release9004.asp

http://aggreen.net/guidelines/guide03.html

http://www.scoba.us/resources/sac-economy.asp

Or, see Rev John H Erickson "The Reception of Non-Orthodox into the OrthodoxChurch: Contemporary Practice," St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly41 (1997), 1-17.Or, see Ware, Timothy (Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. New York: Penguin, 1997.
http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/index.html/SVTQ/http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/index.html/SVTQ/


7/33

Articles

1. The Basis on Which Economy May Be Used in the Reception of Converts(p2).

2. On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the OrthodoxChurch, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches (p9).3. Bishop Tikhons instructions: Orthodox Church in America (p15).4. Baptism and Grace by Fr. Gregory Telepneff, ThD (p21).5. The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the

Church: An Evaluation of Heterodox Baptism by Patrick Barnes (p24).


8/33

1. The Basis on Which Economy May Be Used in the Reception ofConvertsby Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

The canons which deal with the relation of bishops, and in general of all the

children of the Church, to those outside her, are the following: Apostolic, Nos. 10,12, 45, 46 and 65; Conciliar, 1st Ecumenical, Nos. 8 and 19; 2nd Ecumenical, No.7; 6th Ecumenical, No. 95; Laodicea, Nos. 7, 8 and 33; Carthage, Nos. 68 and 79;and the Canonical Rules of St. Basil the Great, Nos. 1 and 47.

Among these some canons directly indicate by what rite which heretics andschismatics should be received into the Church if they desire it and request it,after renouncing their errors and confessing the Orthodox faith and theiracknowledgment of the true Church.

Naturally, these canons do not lessen the necessity of baptism by water for everyman, although it must not be forgotten that very ancient instances in the Churchgive us examples of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the yet unbaptized, sothat the subsequent baptism had a supplementary and chiefly disciplinarysignificance, as uniting them to the earthly Church of Christ.

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heardthe word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as manyas came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift ofthe Holy Spirit; for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Thenanswered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,

which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them tobe baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:44-48).

Of this same event the Apostle Peter recalls further: "And as I began to speak, theHoly Spirit fell on them, as on us in the beginning. Then I remembered the word ofthe Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall bebaptized with the Holy Spirit. For as much then as God gave them the like gift asHe did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I couldwithstand God?" (Acts 11 :15-17).

Without dwelling further on the explanation of these utterances, we must, of

course, also notice that the descent of the Holy Spirit, referred to in the words ofthe Acts which have been quoted, did not release the believers from the obligationof baptism by water, and this obligation many who converted from heresy had tofulfill in accordance with the 46th canon of the Holy Apostles, although theyalready had heretical baptism.

Later Councils, however, clearly distinguish which heretics should he "cleansedby true baptism" (95th canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council and 1st rule of Basilthe Great), and which should be received by the second mystery, and which bythe third mystery and be left in their existing orders. All this is set forth in detail inthe 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council; in the 95th canon of the 6th

Ecumenical Council; in the 1st rule of Basil the Great, and others.


9/33

However, they all issue from the same idea which lies behind the 68th canon ofthe Carthagenian Council, namely, that heretics and schismatics are withoutgrace, which is only received by them on being united to the Church: there can beno half-grace, in spite of the Latin opinion. If we compare this thesis with othercanons of the Councils, we shall see that it entirely agrees with them.

For this we need note the following characteristics of conciliar legislation on thissubject:

1. These canons were changed a) according to time, and b) according tolocality.

2. Their strictness or relaxation depended not so much on the character ofthe heresy or schism, as on the varying relationship of the heretics orschismatics to the Church; and they varied in one direction or the other,according to changes in this relationship of the schismatics to the Church.

3. Sometimes the Ecumenical authorities declared their decisions not to befinal, and sometimes even deferred their decisions while awaiting newChurch Councils.

Let us turn first to the second point.

The Carthagenian Council, in its 79th canon, decided: "To send letters to ourbrethren and fellow bishops, and especially to the apostolic throne in which ourrevered brother and fellow-minister Anastasius presides, to the effect that byreason of the great need in Africa, which is known to him, for the sake of peace

and for the good of the Church, even Donatist clergy should be received in theirsacerdotal orders if they correct their disposition and desire to come to universalunity, in accord with the judgment and will of each bishop ruling the Church in thatplace, if this will prove beneficial to the peace of Christians. It is well known that informer times also this schism was so treated witness to which fact may be foundin instances from many Churches and from almost all the African Churches inwhich this error arose."

So we see here an instance of the application of the principle that has alreadybeen pointed out. The manner of admitting the various apostates depends not somuch on the quality of the heresy, as on the spiritual disposition of the candidate,

and on the expected benefit to the holy Church.

In this connection it is especially important to master the significance of the 1stcanonical rule of St. Basil the Great.

"The Cathari are of the number of the schismatics. Nevertheless, those of old,such as Cyprian and our own Firmilian, were pleased to include them all underone and the same regulation: Cathari, Enkratites, Hydroparastatites andApotactites.

"For although the beginning of the apostasy arose through schism, yet those whofell away from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit. For thepower of imparting grace disappeared because the lawful succession was cut off.


10/33


11/33

Church, that the reception of heretics and schismatics, "in their existing orders,"may be performed only by a bishop; if a priest receive them, then they enter theChurch as simple laymen. This means that a schismatic priest united to theChurch receives true priesthood only through episcopal reception; but a priestcannot bestow this grace on the one received. It is only on such a conception of

the mysteries of the Church that her regulations as to the applicability to hereticsand schismatics of one or the other rite of reception can be accepted; only onsuch a conception can the decisions of the holy apostles about the baptism ofheretics and schismatics be reconciled with the further canons of the Councilsabout not baptizing them, and about their reception by the second, or even by thethird rite. And therefore it is futile for Roman Catholic theologians to blame theOrthodox for such diversity in practice.

As a condition of their reception in their existing orders, the existence amongschismatics, before their conversion to the Church, of hierarchical succession, isusually insisted upon; but from the canonical rule of Basil the Great already

quoted, we see that noschismatics have anysuccession and cannothave any; ahierarchy falling away from the Church "become laymen and cannot confer thegrace of the Holy Spirit, of which they are themselves devoid." Therefore, injudging of one or the other rite of reception, the question of schismaticalsuccession is in any case secondary if not quite irrelevant.

Besides the canons of the Councils already quoted, and those of the holy Fathers,we may refer to the words (also already quoted) of St. Basil the Great, that eachChurch should keep the customs established by her, and be guided byconsiderations of benefit to the Church, and the changing disposition of heretics(for the better or the worse). Thus special consideration was shown to theNestorians, although their heresy was recognized as one of the worst, for itdivided the One Mediator (I Tim.2:5) into two persons and refused to entitle themost holy Virgin, Mother of God. But by the time of the promulgation of the canonthey had forsaken their fanaticism and sought reunion with the true Church. Thatis why local Churches now increased and now relaxed strictness in the manner ofreception.

Thus under the Patriarch Philaret, in 1620, the Latins were reunited thoughbaptism by water, like the heathen, because then, that is at the time of theintroduction of the Unia, a very seductive propaganda was carried on by them, but

when the Russian Tsar annexed Little Russia (1653) and the next year carried outa victorious expedition into Lithuania, and many Uniates began to ask to return toOrthodoxy, the Council of 1667, in spite of all its severity towards deserters fromthe Church, decreed the reception of Roman Catholics by the third rite. Under theTurkish yoke the holy Church was in a different position. There heresy and schismwere stronger, just at the time when among Russians they were weaker, andtherefore the practice of the Eastern Churches took a different direction from thatof the Russian Church: when our forefathers baptized the Latins, the Greeks onlyanointed them with chrism, and when we were already keeping the regulation of1667 and admitting them by the third rite, the Greeks in the Council of 1754, inwhich all the four Eastern Patriarchs took part, were decreeing the rebaptism of

Latins and Protestants. (They have only of late revoked this decree, and thatwithout a new conciliar decision, thereby yielding to the principle of opportunism.)


12/33

Another opinion is held by the estimable Russian Old Believers, whom I havealways regarded with special respect and sympathy, although they consider usOrthodox "heretics of the second rite," and receive those entering their communityby chrismation, even bishops. (The last such case took place in Russia in 1925,and the first in Rumania in 1846, when they received Arsenius, the first Greek

bishop to join their community.)

Apparently the Old Believers are imbued with Latin views on this question. Forthough the warmest opponents of the Latin heresy, of which they, as well as ourother forefathers as far back as the seventeenth century, wrote: "of all theheresies the Latin is the most terrible," yet, by a misunderstanding theyassimilated the doctrine of the mysteries according to the Greater and LesserCatechisms of the seventeenth century, which only by a misapprehension arecalled Orthodox, and which set forth (in the section on the mysteries and on theAtonement) purely Latin doctrine. However, as books in "the ancient printing,"they are held by the Old Believers to be infallible. In reality these books, like the

majority of the Greek and Slavonic books of that and the preceding epochs, wereparaphrased from Latin books, only with the exclusion of such Latin errors aswere exposed by the Patriarch Photius in his Encyclical Epistle of the ninthcentury. This is why, like the Latins, our Old Believers have declared that theNikonites (that is we) are "heretics of the second rite," and anoint with oil (theyhave no holy chrism), not only the laity who come to them, but also bishops andpriests; at the same time receiving them in their ordersa matter for tears andlaughter. Like them the Latin theologians alsothose dull scholasticsmake it anaccusation against the Orthodox that they have changed the rite of the receptionof schismatics and heretics at various times and places, which indeed is fullyagreeable with the meaning of the canons and with ancient ecclesiastical practice.A mystery is not simply an opus operatum, but a pouring out of the grace of Godpreserved in the bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Does this practice agree with our teaching about the Church and about grace, orwith the Latin teaching and its understanding of sacraments, opereoperato, asgiving great grace to the faithful and a certain half-grace to heretics andschismatics? The latter is denied by the 68th canon of the Carthagenian Council,which declares that in the true Church alone are the mysteries administered, forshe "is the dove, the one mother of Christians, in which all mysteries, eternal andlife-giving, are received to salvation; but by those remaining in heresy are

received to great condemnation and punishment. That which in the truth wouldenlighten and assist them towards eternal life, in error becomes to them the moreblinding and the greater condemnation."

From this canon it is seen that heretics and schismatics have no grace whatever;it does not exist outside the one Church of Christ. And if in the same canon,immediately before the words quoted, it is said that those heretics, onanathematizing their former errors, "are received into the Church by the laying onof hands," then it is clear that they obtain freedom from the ancestral sin, that is,from the taint of sin, precisely through this laying on of hands. That is to say, inthis second mystery, the first is given to them also, namely, the grace of baptism.


13/33

Mechanical or purely formal understanding of the mysteries and the Church leadseven educated people into the most foolish beliefs, superstitions and actions.Thus, devotion to the faith, though worthy of all respect, under the slavery ofWestern scholasticism was the cause of the following amusing episode:

In the eighties of the last century a Greek bishop, a speculative person (probablyBishop Lycurgus, but perhaps I am mistaken in the name), visited England.Certain English priests, doubting the validity of their orders (that means also oftheir Church?) asked him to reordain them, and this the traveler performed, ofcourse for filthy lucre's sake (Titus 1:1 1). But withal, remembering the canonicalrule that bishops may not officiate in a strange diocese without the consent of thelocal ecclesiastical authority, they set forth with the said bishop to the open sea,and there on the vessel received "ordination" from him, still remaining afterwardsclergymen of the Church of England. In this way, while straining at a gnat, theyswallowed a camel, for it is clear that if the Greek Church is the one true Church,then after entering it it is impossible to remain Anglican; and while remaining

Anglican it is impossible to receive ordination from a bishop of the Greek Church,which is as yet alien from Anglicanism.

Contemporary practice in the matter of reception is defined along the followinglines:

There must be 1) apostolic succession in the community to which the person to bereceived has belonged; 2) baptism by a regular rite (that is by threefold immersionin the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).

When these conditions are fulfilled the rite of baptism is not repeated. And if hiscommunity had that mystery which we call chrismation (or myrrh anointing), thecandidate for union with Orthodoxy is received into the Church by the third rite,that is by the mystery of penance only. We proceed thus with Latins, Armeniansand Nestorians; this is in accordance with Canon g5 of the 6th EcumenicalCouncil and others. Such reception is called "the third rite," and "in existingorders," that is, if the candidate be a cleric, then he remains such in Orthodoxyafter his reception. Does it follow from this that the Church recognizes as meansof grace and valid mysteries the baptism, chrismation and orders which thecandidate received while yet outside the Church?

Contemporary practice, inherited from Latin teaching on the sacraments andpracticed by them long before their secession from the Church (as is seen, forexample, by reference to 47th rule of St. Basil the Great), is evidently founded onthe view that heretics and schismatics have something like grace, some kind ofhalf-grace.

Not without some foundation the Old Believers put to me, while I was still inRussia, this problem. If you consider all heretics and schismatics to be as devoidof grace as the heathen, why cannot you receive in his existing rank a baptizedJewish rabbi, or even a Lutheran pastor?

I answered thus: first, they themselves do not desire it; and secondly and chiefly,they had not even the visible side of those mysteries which goes with the


14/33

bestowal of invisible grace in the Churchat least in the interest of Churchdiscipline, and perhaps also for other reasons.

The conditional nature of this aspect of the matter is so great that the holyFathers, the canonists, left some questions (of a liturgical character) in an

undecided state for a time. Thus St. Basil the Great leaves many details regardingthe manner of receiving schismatics and heretics into the Church, without definitedecision, and, while fully recognizing the lawfulness of various attitudes towardsthem in different Churches, leaves open certain questions to be decided by newCouncils and more definite opinions of ecclesiastical authorities (Rule 1).

We have already seen that the 79th canon of the Carthagenian Council decreesthe reception of Donatist bishops in their existing orders, "according to thejudgment and will of each bishop ruling the Church in that place; if this shouldprove to further the peace of Christians."

Therefore, reception into the Orthodox Church, 1) is dependent on the pastoraldiscretion of the local bishop, and 2) this discretion is conditioned by the generalgood of the Church.

We may now add that the same canon establishes our manner of reception incomparison with that of the Church of Rome and others. The same 79 th canonsays further: "This is done, not in violation of the decisions of the Council held onthis subject in lands beyond the sea, but for the good of those who desire to enterthe Catholic Church on these terms, and in order that no barriers might be set upagainst their union with the Church."

Such decisions of the Church would be quite impossible if the mode of receptionwere conditioned by the same dogmatic point of view from which each mystery isregarded by the Latins and contemporary Russian theologians, namely, that strictdifferentiation of the grace of the mysteries which is rooted in our own theologicalschools.

Even Basil the Great, dogmatic as he is in defense of ecclesiastical authority inthe same classical first rule regarding the manner of receiving the Cathari,expresses himself quite conditionally and hypothetically, and admits bothpractices. About the Enkratites he expresses himself thus: "In as much as nothing

has been clearly declared about them, it were seemly for us to repudiate theirbaptism, if this not be detrimental to the general well-being."

Continuing, St. Basil still further mitigates his pronouncement, and after decreeingtheir reception by chrismation he adds, "I am aware, moreover, that the brethrenZoin and Satorin, who belonged to their community, were received as bishops(that is by the third rite). And therefore those who belong to their communitycannot now be estranged from the Church by severity of judgment after we haveestablished a certain manner of reception in admitting their bishops."

From the point of view we have presented, all this is reasonable and consistent,

but from the Latin scholastic point of view quite impossible. Thus the adoption ofone or the other mode of reception for those of other confessions who enter the


15/33

Church (that is, heretics or schismatics) depends on ecclesiastical economy, onthe judgment of the local bishops and the Councils, and on the existence of theoutward form of the mysteries of baptism, chrismation and orders in thecommunities from which the applicants come.

Reprinted with permission from Orthodox Life, vol. 30, no. 4, July-August 1980, pp. 27-35. The following note appeared at the

end: "The above article appeared originally in the journal The Christian East(Vol. VIII, 1927, pp. 60-69) under the title "Why

Anglican Clergy could be Received in their Orders" and is presented here in a slightly abridged form."

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/khrap_econ.aspx?print=ok

2. On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into theOrthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches

By Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin)

Originally published in Russian in Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniya(Messenger of the Russian Christian Movement)

Paris-New York-Moscow, Nos. 173 (I-1996) and 174 (II-1996/I-1997).

Translated with permission of the author by Alvian N. SmirenskyTranslation Copyright 2000 Alvian N. Smirensky. All Rights Reserved. Publication Copyright 2000. All

Rights Reserved.

How the question of receiving non-Orthodox is resolved by the Orthodox Churches in

the United States and Canada.

Decisions on this question and some conclusions.

In contemporary times there are two distinct understandings of how to receive non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church.

The first method, which Greeks refer to as "Russian" consists of dividing non-

Orthodox into three categories for the purposes of conversion. In the first

category, those who convert are baptized. In the second, they are chrismated. In

the third, they are received by the rite of repentance, a repudiation of heresy

and confession of the Orthodox Faith. As has been demonstrated above, this

practice is based on the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, on the direct

authority of St. Mark of Ephesus, the Constantinople Council of 1484, the

decisions of the Moscow Councils of 1655 and especially of 1667, the decisions of

the Holy Council of 1718 as well as later decisions and directives of the Holy

Ruling Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is true that there was a time in

the Russian Church when Roman Catholics (and Protestants) were received into

Orthodoxy by means of baptism, but throughout the thousand year history of the

Russian Church this was only in effect for 45 to 47 years after which that practice

of receiving all non-Orthodox without distinction was condemned and repealed


16/33

once and for all. As a result, three forms or rites were developed for receiving

non-Orthodox into the bosom of the Orthodox Church.

In the second method, any and allnon-Orthodox are received by baptism followed bychrismation. This was adopted by the Greeks at the Council of Constantinople in

1756 and is described in the Pedalion.

Not a single non-Greek Orthodox Church adopted this practice. Instead, the non-Greek Orthodox Churches firmly adhering to that practice, which is designated as"Russian."

In recent times, the Patriarchate of Constantinople rescinded the use of the secondmethod and now receives non-Orthodox by means of the "Russian" rite.

All of the Greek Old Calendarist jursidictions (of which there are at least seven), bothin the United States and in Greece, adhere to the "Greek" rite for the reception ofnon-Orthodox into Orthodoxy, i.e., exclusively by means of baptism as this wasdecreed by the 1756 Council in Constantinople. This "Greek" practice, with certainmodifications, and the turning away from the "Russian" practice, recently became therule for the Russian Church Abroad, according to the decision of the Council ofBishops on September 15/28 1971. The complete text of that decision will be givenat the end of this chapter.

The Orthodox Church in America (the former "American Metropolia"), founded byRussian missionaries and later forming a diocese of the Russian Orthodox Churchwith its center first in San Francisco and then in New York, and which for a time had

as her diocesan bishop the future [Saint] Patriarch Tikhon, inherited the traditions ofthe Russian Church with respect to the rite for the reception of the non-Orthodoxconverting to the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church in America receives non-Orthodox by three rites:

1. Those converting from Judaism, paganism, and Islam, as well as those whodistort or do not accept the dogma of the Holy Trinity, or where thebaptism is performed by a single immersion, by means of baptism.

2. Those whose baptism was valid but who either do not have sacrament ofchrismation or who lack a hierarchy with apostolic succession (or if it isquestionable), by means of chrismation. This group includes Lutherans,Calvinists and Episcopalians (Anglicans).

3. Those whose hierarchy has apostolic succession and whose baptism andchrismation (or confirmation) was performed in their church, by means ofrepentance and repudiation of heresy, following instruction in Orthodoxy.

This group includes persons of the Roman Catholic and Armenianconfessions. If it happens that they were not chrismated or confirmed intheir churches or if there is any question about this, they are anointed withthe Holy Chrism.

Exactly the same rules are found in all the non-Greek Orthodox Churches in Americaand Canada.


17/33

The Patriarchate of Constantinople itself has radically moved away from the spiritwhich motivated the decisions of the 1756 Council in Constantinople. In its "CircularEpistle to all Christian Churches" in 1920 the Synod of the Patriarchate ofConstantinople appealed to all Christian Churches with a proposal to do everythingto set aside the mutual mistrust between the churches. Instead, the feelings of love

must be regenerated and it must be intensified so the churches would not look uponeach other as strangers or even as enemies, but would see in each other their ownkin and friends in Christ. The epistle proposes that there would be mutual respect forthe customs and practices which are particular to each of the churches which aregraced by Christs holy name, no longer forgetting and not ignoring His "newcommandment", that great commandment of mutual love.[96]

During the last session of the Second Vatican Council at the end of December 1965there was an announcement by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the RomanPope and the Second Vatican Council about the mutual lifting of the anathemaswhich were "exchanged" between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church

during that tragic year of 1054, the year of the great division of Churches.[97]

In the chapter "On Ecumenism" in the collected documents and decrees of theSecond Vatican Council, the Orthodox Church is spoken of with exceptional warmth.As one who was present at the Second Vatican Council in the capacity of an officialobserver from the Russian Church Abroad, I can be a witness to the exceptionallycordial and attentive relations towards all of the observers from the OrthodoxChurches on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. To be sure, how firm thoserelations were, remains under question.

Following the Second Vatican Council an agreement was worked out between theRussian Orthodox Church and the Roman Church that, in the case of extreme needand in the complete absence of their clergy, members of the Roman Church couldreceive the Holy Mysteries in Russian Churches and likewise, the Orthodox inRoman Catholic Churches.[98] We have no knowledge whether this agreement wasrealized in practice or whether it only remains on paper. Not a single OrthodoxChurch, with the exception of the Russian Church Abroad, reproached the Patriarchof Moscow for this decision which was called forth by the terrible times andpersecutions of Christians under godless regimes.[99]Nonetheless this decision hasnot been rescinded even now, and the recently printed catechism of the RomanChurch published with the blessing of Pope John Paul II speaks of the full

recognition of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. However, there is no doubtthat as the result of the proselytism among the traditionally Orthodox population by Roman Catholics and by Protestants to which the Orthodox Church reacts withgreat distress, as well as on the repression against the Orthodox in Western Ukraineand even in Poland there is no longer that warmth and cordiality towards theOrthodox as there was during the Second Vatican Council and for some timeafterwards. However, the incisive question today is this: Has there been any changein the practice of the Roman Catholic or Lutheran Churches with respect to theirsacrament of baptism? And the answer is this: Nothing has changed. Thus, ourChurches (with the exception of the Russian Church Abroad), recognize thesacrament of baptism performed by Roman Catholics and Lutherans as valid.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot96http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot97http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot98http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot99http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot99http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot96http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot97http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot98http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot99


18/33

So, to return to the subject at hand, we repeat that the Patriarchate ofConstantinople and its Exarchates in America and in Europe have adopted thatpractice for the reception of non-Orthodox to Orthodoxy, which the Greeks call"Russian," and effectively rejected the decision of the 1756 Council ofConstantinople (which was motivated by intolerance) and the explanation in the

Pedalion.

Thus, in the "Guide for the Orthodox in Connection with Contacts with the Non-Orthodox Churches," published in 1966 by the Standing Conference of CanonicalOrthodox Bishops in America, recommended for guidance by the clergy of ourOrthodox Churches, the following rule is given:

"Upon the reception into the Orthodox Church of one who converts ofhis own will from non-Orthodoxy, the priest receives the candidate bymeans of one of three rites, prescribed by the Quinisext EcumenicalCouncil: by means of Baptism, Chrismation or the confession of faith,

depending on the case."[100]

In the "Instructions for the Relations with Non-Orthodox Churches," published by thesame Conference in 1972, we read the same rule concerning the reception of thenon-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church, i.e., "Those non-Orthodox converting toOrthodoxy who were baptized in their churches can be received without a repetitionof baptism if such could be accepted by the Orthodox, i.e., by means of chrismationor the confession of the Orthodox Faith, according to the rite appropriate for thegiven situation."[101]

This rite is found in the "Guidelines" of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America,pp. 53-55. Or one can use that rite, which was printed in Russia and is found in theBook of Needs: "The Office for Receiving into the Orthodox Faith such persons ashave not previously been Orthodox, but have been reared from infancy outside theOrthodox Church, yet have received valid baptism in the name of the Father, and ofthe Son and of the Holy Spirit." This rite has been translated into English and can befound in the book published with the blessing of the [Saint] Most Holy PatriarchTikhon: Isabel Florence Hapgood, "Orthodox Service Book," 1954 ed., p. 454ff.

We see from Church history that it was the lot of the dissident sects such asNovatians, Montanists and Donatists to re-baptize those converting to them.

Considering themselves "pure" and "better" and seeing themselves as the only oneswho will be saved, they abhorred everyone else. They could have earned respectbecause of their high moral demands, but pride did them in. They cut themselvesfrom the main body of the Church where life and grace did abide, and thuscompletely died out within a short period of time. "The Lord resists the proud, but Hegives grace to the humble" (Prov. 3:34 LXX). Even in Russia, certain dissidents,especially the Priestless Old Ritualists, likewise performed re-baptism on theOrthodox if they converted to them. The humble, kind, compassionate, benevolentand condescending Orthodox Church possessed and possesses and will continue topossess Grace and along with it, the vitality and the strength to be magnanimous.That re-baptism, which the heretics and the dissidents performed upon the Orthodox,

harbored within it their inner weakness. The strong and righteous is not afraid to bemagnanimous, but the weak and unrighteous cannot permit this for himself. As we
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot100http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot101http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot100http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot101


19/33

have seen, in ancient times (particularly in the Third century) and within the OrthodoxChurch there have been tendencies to re-baptize dissidents who convert to theOrthodox Church. But the Church decisively opposed this, forbidding, with hercanons, the re-baptism of those who were validly baptized in the name of the HolyTrinity. The Ecumenical Councils, the Second and especially the Sixth, directed by

their decisions, who should be received into Orthodoxy by means of baptism, who by means of chrismation and who by means of repentance, the repudiation ofheresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. By this it piously maintained the ruleabout the non-repetition of a valid baptism even if it was performed outside theOrthodox Church. In Russia, as we have later seen, for a short time it was decreedto receive all non-Orthodox by means of baptism. But this "re-baptism" called for bythe horrors of those times was as something erroneous quickly rescinded once andfor all by the councils and decrees of the Holy Russian Church. Finally, as we haveseen the patriarchate of Constantinople factually rejected that radical decree aboutthe re-baptism all non-Orthodox converting to Orthodoxy, pronounced by the 1756Council in Constantinople.

Each of the Orthodox Churchs mysteries has a dogmatic side. Forms may changeand the canons may be amended, but their dogmatic aspects remains immutable,For example, the forms of the Divine Liturgy changed during the course of centuries,but the dogmatic essence of the Divine Liturgy remained and remains withoutchange namely, that under the appearance of bread and wine we receive the TrueBody and Blood of Christ, which change takes place through the sacred action of thebishop or the priest. Thus, in the mystery of baptism its dogmatic foundation, itssubstance is that it is performed by triple immersion (or by its equivalent)[102]pronouncing each of the Persons of the Divine Trinity, individually, and then in thenon-repetition of this mystery, since it was the spiritual birth of the Christian intoeternal life in Christ. Just as our birth in the flesh occurs only once, so does ourspiritual birth occurs only once in the mystery of baptism. This non-repetition of validbaptism, as a dogma, is sealed for all times in the Symbol of Faith: "I believe . . . inone Baptism." Even if the baptism was performed in a non-Orthodox church, but inthe same form as it is performed among the Orthodox, it is accepted, according tothe canons of the Ecumenical Councils.[103] The Blessed Augustine wrote that thesacrament of baptism was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and even theperversion (perversitas) of the heretics does not deprive that sacrament of itsveracity and validity. Thus it follows that re-baptism violates the dogmatic principle ofthe non-repetition of baptism.[104]

In September 1971, the Russian Church Abroad, rejecting the "Russian" practice forthe reception of non-Orthodox, adopted the "Greek" practice, i.e., the practicefollowed by the Greek Old Calendarists, based on the decisions of the 1765 Councilin Constantinople, decreeing that all non-Orthodox Christians converting to theOrthodox Faith must be received exclusively by means of baptism permitting only"for reasons of necessity" their reception by another rite, but only with permissionfrom the diocesan hierarch.

This decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad of 15/28September 1971 reads:[105]
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot102http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot103http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot104http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot105http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot102http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot103http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot104http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/#foot105


20/33

"On the question of the baptism of heretics who accept Orthodoxy, thefollowing decree was adopted: The Holy Church has believed from timeimmemorial that there can be only one true baptism, namely that whichis performed in her bosom: One Lord, one faith, one baptism. (Eph.4:5) In the Symbol of Faith there is also confessed one baptism, and

the 46th Canon of the Holy Apostles directs: A bishop or a presbyterwho has accepted (i.e., acknowledges) the baptism or the sacrifice ofheretics, we command to be deposed.

"However when the zeal of some heretics in their struggle against theChurch diminished and when the question arose about a massiveconversion to Orthodoxy, the Church, to facilitate their conversion,received them into her bosom by another rite. St Basil the Great in hisFirst Canon, which was included in the canons of the Sixth EcumenicalCouncil, points to the existence of different practices for receivingheretics in different lands. He explains that any separation from the

Church deprives one of grace and writes about the dissidents: Eventhough the departure began through schism, however, those departingfrom the Church already lacked the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thegranting of grace has ceased because the lawful succession has beencut. Those who left first were consecrated by the Fathers and throughthe laying on of their hands had the spiritual gifts. But, they becamelaymen and had no power to baptize nor to ordain and could nottransmit to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which theythemselves fell away. Therefore, the ancients ruled regarding thosethat were coming from schismatics to the Church as having beenbaptized by laymen, to be cleansed by the true baptism of the Church.However, for the edification of many St. Basil does not object to otherrites for receiving the dissident Cathars in Asia. About the Encratites hewrites, that this could be a hindrance to the general good order and adifferent rite could be used, explaining this: But I am afraid of puttingan impediment to the saved, while I would raise fears in themconcerning their baptism.

"Thus, St Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council,while establishing the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Churchthere is no valid baptism, allows through pastoral condescension,

called economy, the reception of some heretics and dissidents withouta new baptism. On the basis of this principle the Ecumenical Councilsallowed the reception of heretics by different rites, in response to theweakening of their hostility against the Orthodox Church.

"The Kormchaya Kniga gives an explanation for this by Timothy ofAlexandria. On the question Why do we not baptize hereticsconverting to the Catholic Church? his response is: If this were so, aperson would not quickly turn from heresy, not wanting to be shamedby receiving baptism (i.e., second baptism). However, the Holy Spiritwould come through the laying on of hands and the prayer of the

presbyter, as is witnessed in the Acts of the Apostles.


21/33


22/33

3. Bishop Tikhons Instructions

Source: http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html

Thursday, March 13, 1997Clean Thursday

The Orthodox Church in America

The Bishop of San Francisco and the West

650 Micheltorena Street, Los Angeles, CA 90026-3629Telephone: (213) 913-3615; Facsimile (213) 913-0316

Letter of Instructions #10:

THE RECEPTION OF HERETIC LAITY AND CLERGY INTO THEORTHODOX CHURCH

[by Bishop Tikhon]

Very Reverend and ReverendArchimandrites, Hegumens, Hieromonks,

Archpriests and PriestsDiocese of the West

Dear and most esteemed Very Reverend and Reverend Fathers:

The Lord's blessing be upon you!

Recently, I've become aware of a lot of discussion and controversy in Orthodoxcircles here in America on the topic of the proper way to receive, for example,Roman Catholics and Lutherans, into the Orthodox Church, and how RomanCatholic and Lutheran clergy become Orthodox clergy. While it is on the one handinspiring to observe our clergy and people engaged in thought, discussion, evendebate on holy topics, it is also disturbing to me when some of those engaged inthese discussions and debates seem to minimize or give only a passing, slight nod in

the direction of the practices that have beenpassed on to us, and seem to feel thatany theological conclusions they may reach on these topics must be reflected inpractice. It is most perplexing, too, that the labels of conservative and liberal, soinappropriate to Christian, as opposed to political, thought, are applied to one orother position on the topic, frequently in a way completely contradictory to themeaning of those political labels.

The practice of our Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and that of the RussianOrthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America ("The Metropolia"), as likewisethat of the Russian Mission and Missionary Diocese and Archdiocese that precededthem, in the matter of the reception of heretics is very clear: it is the practice thatobtains and has obtained in the Russian Church for centuries, at least since the timeof Peter the Great. It may be found and studied in the Service Books of the Church


23/33

of Russia [in both its "native" conformation (The Church of Russia) and "foreign"(Abroad) conformation]. According, for example, to the Book of Needs published atVladimirova between the wars by the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia,that differs in no respects from previous and subsequent Books of Needs publishedby The Church of Russia, Roman Catholics are received, after undergoing the Office

for the Reception Converts printed in the same book, immediately into Communionand 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 theRoman communion and not from the Uniates), in which case they would bechrismated. No provision at all is provided in the Service Books to receive RomanCatholics in the manner of receiving Jews and Mohammedans, i.e., to baptize them.

Theprescribedpractice printed in our Service Books has been in force and activeuse for centuries, and it cannot be considered only a temporary episode ofEconomyin the life of the Church. When candidates for the Laying-on-of-Hands to thehonorable Priesthood promise to observe the liturgical order of the Church, they are

promising (failing a contrary directive from their Bishop) to follow the prescribed ritesprinted in the Service Books. And the overturning of the prescribed practice without apreceding directive from a Synod or council would be an example ofinnovation.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 ever-memorableMetropolitans Antony (Khrapovitsky) and Anastassy (Gribanovski). I know of no oralor written guidance given by anyof the foregoing luminaries alteringthe receivedpractice in this matter.

Saint Elisabeth (Elizaveta Fyodorovna), recently added to the calendar of Saints ofthe Russian Church, was received into the Orthodox Church (as was likewise hersister, the sainted Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna) from the state German LutheranChurch where she had been baptized as a child, through the Rite of the Reception ofHeretics with ensuing Chrismation--without a new Baptism.

Recently a book touching heavily on the topic of the baptism of converts by aProfessor of the state Church of Greece, Professor Metallinos, has enjoyed a wide

readership in American Orthodox circles. Whatever may be one's opinions andconvictions vis--vis the conclusions of Professor Metallinos on the question, onemust realize that these conclusions have significance only insofar as they mightappear inter alia on the agenda of a Synod of Bishops or a Church Council thatwould decide to re-examine the received practice of our Church. One need not readProfessor Metallinos's book to find support for the peculiar position of the GreekChurch(es) on the topic: in fact, one would expect to find the practices of the stateChurch of Greece being well-defended by all Her Faithful children. I have appended,as "Attachment One" to this letter, an excerpt from the collection of the Canons ofthe Orthodox Church with commentaries by a noted, authoritative canonist outsidethe boundaries of the state Church of Greece, Bishop Nikodim of the Serbian

Church. This is an authoritative statement on what is, in fact, our received practiceby a Hierarch at least as widely respected on the topic of Church canons as


24/33

Professor Metallinos. I don't present this attachment as justification or defense for apractice that I uphold because I believe it to be my duty as a Bishop. I'm presenting itin the interests of clarity, and I want to add to the ongoing discussion and debate adocument that should assure everyone that any Priest or Bishop of the OrthodoxChurch in America that receives Roman Catholic heretics by Chrismation or

Lutheran or Anglican heretics by Chrismation is not some kind of "loose-shotgunLiberal" motivated by ecumenism or the heretical "branch theory" of ecclesiology, butis someone that is following a practice totally obedient to the received practice ofour Church.

I also feel it incumbent on me to comment on the reception of Roman Catholic clergyand their becoming Orthodox clergy. I've attached my own translation of theprescribed"Office of Receiving a Priest of the Roman Church into Communion withthe Orthodox Catholic Church", that is the venerable and centuries old practice of theChurch of Russia, of the Russian Mission and Missionary Diocese in America and itssuccessors, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America ("The

Metropolia") and the Orthodox Church in America.

As I commented on the reception of two sainted German princesses into theOrthodox Church when discussing the reception of Laity, I would like to point to thereception of St. Alexis Toth (Tovt) of Minneapolis and Wilkes-Barre. St. Alexis wasreceived according to the rite outlined in the attached document, i.e., by Confessionof Faith, Penance, and vesting in the Altar after the Cherubicon. How could it beotherwise? Can one imagine Bishop Vladimir or Bishop Nicholas, the two Russianhierarchs of the day, contravening the established practice of the Russian Churchand 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 SanFrancisco in the first place because a Roman Catholic hierarch did not recognize hisPriesthood!One may only imagine how history might now differ if the RussianOrthodox Bishop in San Francisco had also refused to recognize his Priesthood andthat of many subsequent Clergy of the Church!)

Recently a Hierarch of our Orthodox Church In America received a Priest from theRoman church exactly as our Tradition requires, yet this action was, scandalously,publicly decried by a few clergy and laity of the Orthodox Church in America, and atleast one temporarily lost soul went so far as to adopt the custom of the hereticalAmish and shunnedthe Priest that had been received into the community of

Orthodox clergy in the prescribed fashion! Dearly beloved and esteemed brotherPriests and Shepherds! Let's always be governed in our conduct by the Tradition ofour Church and not by the temporary passions of the day that may splash like wavesof 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 inAmerica are reckless opponents of Church Order or Discipline. We do not "take ourcues" from anything but what we have received. The Orthodox practice of receivingRoman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans as described by the Serbian BishopNikodim and the Orthodox reception of Roman Catholic priests as outlined inNikol'sky are not any sort of indications that our Hierarchy is hostage to ecumenism,

branch theory, relativism, positivism, scholasticism, liberalism, indifferentism or any


25/33

other "ism" conflicting in any way with the Holy Tradition, but a sign of theirobedience.

During the time when Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas and the South was serving theChurch as Bishop of Berkeley, a letter was sent out to all the parishes in the then

Diocese of San Francisco that directed that "across the board" Roman Catholics aswell as Anglicans and Lutheran and Calvinists previously baptized with water and inthe Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, would be received by Chrismation. Thatpolicy remains in effect.

At our next meeting of the venerable clergy, I want the manner that we receiveconverts to be on the agenda. Right now, the practice may vary too widely fromparish to parish to characterize it. Further, some questions I have been given leadme to believe that there is some confusion on what our practice is and should be.Therefore, in the interim, I ask all the Rectors to receive heretics according to theformat in the Service Book translated by Hapgood. That means a life's confession, a

definite, specific and public and renunciation of specific wrong teachings formerlyheld, Absolution according to the formula printed in that Office, and ensuingChrismation of the Convert on all the places prescribed and then Communion of theHoly Mysteries.

Assuring you of my constancy in prayer and sending a blessing,

With love in Christ,

[signed]

+TIKHON

DISTRIBUTION: His Beatitude and Members of the Holy Synod

Encls.

1. Excerpt from Bp. Nikodim's "Pravila."

2. Excerpt from Nikol'sky's "Ustav."

EXCERPT FROM (IN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE)

RULES (Canons) OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH with Explanations.Nikodim, Bishop of Dalmatia and Istria.

Volume I.Translated from the Serbian.

Saint Petersburg. The Saint Petersburg Theological Academy.1911

Page 282-3


26/33

[Webmaster's Note: Quotations from the Russian, included by His Grace for clarity,have been transliterated for online distribution by the editor.]

(Preceding the following is a discussion of the differences of opinion of East andWest)

Therefore, being governed, on the question of Baptism done by a non-Orthodoxcommunity (obschestvo), by the general injunctions (predpisaniyami) of the councilsand Fathers, one may thus delineate the principle of the Orthodox Church: Baptismas something instituted by Jesus Christ may be accomplished only in His Churchand consequently only in the Church may it be correct and salvific; however, if otherChristian communities located outside the Orthodox Church hold the consciousintention of bringing the newly-baptized into Christ's Church, i.e., have the intentionto communicate to him Divine Grace through Baptism in order that he would becomethrough the power of the Holy Spirit a true member of the Body of Christ and areborn child of God, then this Baptism also may be considered effective insofar as it

is done on the foundation of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and ofthe Son and of the Holy Spirit, for where such a Baptism is given and received, thereit must operate with Grace (deistvovat blagodatno) and Christ's support cannot failto be there. Every community that perverts the teaching about God and does notrecognize the Trinity of holy Persons in the Godhead cannot perform a correctbaptism, and a baptism done in it is not Baptism because such a community liesoutside Christianity. By virtue of this, the Orthodox Church recognizes as effectiveand saving the Baptism of every Christian community located outside Herboundaries, whether it be heretical or schismatic, truly (istinno) done in the name ofthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Bishop Nikodim adds a footnote: "According to the practice of the Greek Church,Roman Catholics converting to the Orthodox Church must be baptized again. We arenot in a position to express our judgment relative to this practice, since we don'tknow how it is that the Greek Church applies the first rule of Saint Basil to RomanCatholics. We will only remark that this is exclusively the practice (isklyuchitel'nopraktika) ofthe Greek Church and also that both in Russia and Serbia RomanCatholics are received into the Church without a new Baptism...

From

AN AIDTO THE STUDY OF

THE TYPIKON OF SERVICES

Of the Orthodox Church

By Konstantin Nikol'sky

Archpriest of the Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos on Sennaya

Sixth Edition

Saint Petersburg. 1900

pp. 685-686


27/33

THE OFFICE OF RECEIVING A PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CHURCH INTO

COMMUNION WITH THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH [1]1. Such cases of uniting to the Orthodox Church are done according to the

general office as outlined here.2. The sponsor that is customary in this is chosen from among the Clergy.

3. There is no female sponsor.

4. Recognition of the person thus conjoined in the office of Priest requires adecision of the Holy Synod.

5. Before his admittance to service as a Priest, his conscience must beexamined before a spiritual father, as in the case of one preparing forOrdination.

6. If examination reveals there is no canonical impediment for a blessing toserve, then, when the Hierarch arrives at the Church to celebrate the

Divine Liturgy, the candidate comes with the rest of the clergy dressedaccording to the custom of Orthodox clergy and receives with them theHierarch's blessing, after which he goes to the Diaconicon and stays there,not vested, until the Cherubicon.

7. After the Cherubicon and the placing of the holy gifts on the Holy Table, heis led by Subdeacons, but not through the Holy Doors, rather within theAltar to the Holy Throne (Altar Table) and to the Hierarch, and hereverences him in the manner of one being brought to Ordination. And thePriestly vestments are brought and put on the one being received into thecommunity of the Priesthood. The Hierarch blesses each piece of thevestments, and the one being vested kisses the Hierarch's hand. And the

Deacon says the verses for Priestly vestments, not as exclamations, but sothat the one being vested can hear him. After this the one received intothe community of the Priesthood receives the kiss of peace from theHierarch and the rest, in the manner of one just ordained, and he standswith the rest of the Priests and takes part in the Liturgy and in theCommunion of the Holy Mysteries. And from thence he has the samepower to liturgize as an Orthodox Priest. [2] (Collection of the Opinionsand Judgments of Metropolitan Philaret, volume V, pp. 952-953.)

--------------------------------------------

1 This office was formulated by Metropolitan Philaret because of the case of thereputed incorrect bringing into Orthodox Communion of the Abbot Maundreli. See"Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow to A.P.M. 1832-1867.

2 In the periodical "Readings of the Imperial Society of History and Antiquities"(1892, book 4) the basis for this is set out that clergy coming from among theheretics being united to the Orthodox Church, about whom there is no doubt of theirhaving been baptized and ordained, must be received by only presenting a writtenconfession of faith and condemnation of their heresy as was practiced by theSeventh Ecumenical Council with regard to the conversion of the Iconoclasticbishops and other clergy, etc., and they must be received, each in his priestly rank,

according to the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council, i.e., vested.


28/33

Source: http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html


29/33

4. Baptism and Graceby Fr. Gregory Telepneff, ThD

The late Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, of blessed memory, wasmore than once in his lifetime quoted to the effect that the Grace of God was not

totally absent from non-Orthodox Christians; yet, when pressed to accept inter-Communion with Anglicans or Catholics, he declared this to be impossible.Evidently, the issue is more complicated than it seems to be at first glance, andthe Metropolitan felt that there were quite serious differences separatingOrthodoxy from the Western confessions, nonetheless. In this century, however,much has been made of the apparent discrepancies between the consistentRussian practice of avoiding re-baptism, in contrast to the fairly consistent Greekpropensity for re-baptism. Some twenty years ago, Bishop Kallistos (Ware), in achapter from his bookEustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church Under Turkish

Rule, apparently quite logically explained that the variation in Russian and Greekpractice was not based upon any theological differences, but, rather, merely upondifferent uses ofoikonomia. Still, many Orthodox today are not satisfied with thisposition, and refer to the statements of recognized holy men, such asMetropolitan Philaret, in support of their contention that non-Orthodox Christiansdo indeed "have some grace." Moreover, one may say that the testimony of a holyman, though perhaps not always infallible, is formidable nonetheless. One mayindeed contend that many times such holy men poetically sense certain matters offaith that defy totally "logical" verbal explanations [1]. Still, it does not seem to methat there is necessarily any theological difference between Greek and Russianthought with regard to grace and non-Orthodox baptisms. By reference to a fewpertinent Patristic quotations, I hope to explain this.

Let us begin with a recent article by Mr. John Erickson [2], in which he writesseveral things of interest concerning this matter. I should like to make reference totwo of his points in particular. First, it seems he misses one rather essential pointin St. Basil when he endeavors to offer this Father as an example of a more"moderate" Orthodox Patristic voice. Erickson claims that St. Basil "accepts" thebaptisms of certain Novationists (cf pp. 120-22). Now, St. Basil certainlyunderstands in his statements that to baptize twicethat is, a second time"validly," as it wereis considered a sin in Orthodoxy. And yet St. Basil writesfurther, concerning Encratites (a dualistic gnostic group):

I deem therefore that since there is nothing definitely prescribed asregards them [Encratites] it was fitting that we should set theirbaptism aside and if any of them appears to have left, he shall bebaptised upon entering the Church. If however this is to become anobstacle in the general economy of the Church, we must againfollow the others who economically regulated thc Church [i.e., andnot re-baptize]. (Canon 1)

Also, in his forty-seventh canon, St. Basil states that Encratites and Novationists(the latter being those, according to Mr. Erickson, whose baptism is "accepted")come "under the same rule"so the parallel in these two cases is obvious. Would

the Great Basil so lightly, as it seems, treat the possiblity of committing a gravesin in repeating this Holy Mystery, if he meant by the word "accept" that such


30/33

baptisms were valid? Obviously not. He does not say that such baptisms are"valid"; in "accepting" them, he simply acknowledges their Orthodoxform.Andhere is the mistake that Mr. Erickson makesone which should not be made.

Yet elsewhere in his article, Erickson states that we Orthodox cannot totally deny

the charismatic significance of non-Orthodox baptismlooking at it as if it were nodifferent from a pagan act (except, of course, in the case of an extreme hereticalsect). One might, in support of this, cite the words of Metropolitan Philaret.Although his interpretation of St. Basil's foregoing reference was certainly off themark, and while one may say that not all of the conclusions that Erickson draws inhis article are fully Orthodox, this latter statement of his does make sense and iscompelling. We are, then, back to the issue of the Russian and Greek practicesand the ostensible disparity between what makes sense to us, as supported byMetropolitan Philaret, and St. Basil's understanding that, while we may accept the"form" of some baptisms, this does not mean that we, as Orthodox, recognizethem as valid. Mr. Erickson's approach does not solve this dilemma for us.

In order to reconcile these seemingly discordant views of non-Orthodox baptism,let us define what Orthodox baptism is and does. Then let us define what grace isand what it does. We shall cite here St. Diadochus of Photiki:

Before holy Baptism, grace encourages the soul from the outside,while Satan lurks in its depths, trying to block all the noetic faculty'sways of approaching the Divine. But from the moment that we arereborn through Baptism, the demon is outside, grace is within. Thuswhereas before Baptism error ruled the soul, after Baptism truthrules it. Nevertheless, even after Baptism Satan (can) still act uponthe soul....

If my reading of the Holy Fathers is correct, what the saving acts of Christ makepossible is the appropriation of grace by man himselfmaking "grace his own,"which in turn totally renews and transforms the entire person. That is to say, a realmetaphysical, ontological change can now take place in the baptized person, ifas St. Gregory Nyssa tells us in his Catechetical Orationhe lives virtuously andmakes his baptism effective in Faith and the spiritual life.

In saying what we have about grace and baptism, we have not said that non-

Orthodox are totally without grace, indistinguishable from pagans. No indeed. If Iunderstand St. Maximos correctly, Christ (and hence grace) can be found in virtueitself. A virtuous man takes on grace by virtue of virtue, since virtue proceeds fromspiritual reality. Of course, without the radical ontological transformation that takesplace in the Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Church, such grace cannot beappropriated and cannot be made "one's own." Nevertheless, as we see in thewords of St. Diadochus, grace is still presentthough acting from without, ratherthan from within. And so, it is this internal-external distinction which separatesOrthodox baptism from non-Orthodox baptism: the Orthodox baptism does whatChrist, the Apostles, and the Church always intended it to doit transforms manfrom within, totally renewing the true human nature and opening the way for

potential communion with the divine.


31/33

Thus, Metropolitan Philaret was not wholly mistaken in his desire to attribute some"charismatic" significance to non-Orthodox baptism. If, in the theological climate ofLatin influence on the Russian Orthodox Church at the time, his words are a bitoverstated, what he could not express with perfect theological precision henonetheless knew intuitively and poetically. While he knew that a non-Orthodox

baptism itself was not efficacious (since he would not allow intercommunion withthe heterodox), he knew fully well that the virtuous act of faith in Christ which wesee in non-Orthodox baptisms was something in the eyes of God. What thatsomething is, he perhaps was too quick to say. It is not the renewing,metaphysically-transforming thing that Orthodox baptism is, but it is powerfulenough that even Roman actors, mocking the Christian Mysteries, were oftenconverted to Christ by simply enacting the ritual of baptism.

It is Orthodox baptismand Orthodox baptism alonewhich begins to fulfill thesaving work of our Lord in the human person in the fullest sense. Whereas abeliever can be led to repentance (even St. John the Forerunner baptized a

baptism of repentance), only in the baptized Orthodox Christian can there berestoration to the true self and recovery from a state of corruption and stainonlyan Orthodox baptism can restore the ontological integrity of man (cf St.Athanasios On the Incarnation).

We may note that several of the great Fathers of the Church (including Sts. Basil,Augustine, and Gregory the Theologian) have implied that the "charismatic," asdistinct from the "sacramental," boundaries of the Church may not completelycoincide with the canonical ones. There may be aspects and dimensions of theChurch which have not been revealed to us by God. Indeed, we see a parallelbetween these implications and our Christian understanding that the Church in"embryo" existed among God's chosen people, the Israelites. One may also cite,as part of these "shady" areas, St. Basil's contention that some schismatics arenot to be considered wholly outside the Church (Canon 1). And the late FatherGeorges Florovsky notes that the Church has categories of people, such ascatechumens and penitents,[3] who are perhaps not full members of the Church,and yet certainly are not regarded as heathens. We are not simply being politewhen we insist that non-Orthodox Christians be called Christians.

When the Russians receive non-Orthodox by Chrisimation, then, they are doingso with a keen eye toward the charismatic grace outside Orthodoxy, but not with a

view of accepting "sacramental" grace in the non-Orthodox. Greeks, when theypractice baptism, are not denying this charismatic grace, but are emphasizing thatit is notthe grace of the Mysteries. In essence, we see oikonomia differentlyexercised in these instances. There is no discrepancy in these two traditions. Theonly discrepancy arises when we mistakenly try to attribute to the FathersSt.Basil, for example views which they do not have (the Fathers cannot really beunderstood as "moderate" or "extreme" with regard to matters such as baptism),or when we try to make the difficult question of where grace, of whatever kind, isor is not a simple one.

We are not, in the end, preserving the purity of the Holy Faith when we attempt to

prove that the fullness of grace and true baptism exist outside the OrthodoxChurch. That this is being done increasingly by converts to Orthodoxy should


32/33

prompt us to think about whether we are conveying to those who come toOrthodoxy the fullness of the Church's teaching. Creating of Orthodoxy anecumenical religion that it is not is ultimately the most harmful thing for converts.They are building their own stones from the crumbs that they are offered in thesehard days. On the other hand, we do disservice to the Providence of God when

we do not understand the depth and subtle nature of Orthodox Patristic thought.The Fathers have a deep and profound unity to their witness, but it must bestudied and understood with care and charity. It does not compromise our standfor the uniqueness and primacy of Orthodoxy to admit that there are many non-Orthodox confessors of Christ who shame us. The Royal Path demands that wehave great zeal for the Faith, yet not limit the workings of Divine Providence.

For those who find in our views the proverbial "closet ecumenism," we would onlystress that ecumenism, as we have pointed out, is a total distortion of Orthodoxteaching. For those who would claim that we believe that salvation is relative, wewould cite the words of the Fathers above and our own belief that the fullness of

life in Christ can only be found in Orthodoxyand that fullness is the very natureof Christianity. And to those who would wish that the Orthodox Church were notwhat she must always be the very criterion of Truth and the Church of theApostles, the only Church of Christ, we would only say that they have yet a longway to go before they are truly Orthodox.

Endnotes

1. When Greek and Russian holy men seem to disagree on matters, we mustseek beyond the inadequacies of language and see the noetic unity of theirthoughts. Only then do we see the profundity of theological truths at a higherlevel, in which discrepancies and opposites become the same.

2. St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, No. 2, 1985.

3. It is interesting to note, too, that Sts. Chyrsostomos and Gregory theTheologian both tell us that the unbaptized infants are saved, but that they are noton the same level as those who have striven and suffered for the Faith.

From Orthodox Tradition, III, 1986

Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/baptism.aspx

5. The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church:

Chapter V. An Evaluation of Heterodox Baptism. by Patrick Barnes

This is a very useful chapter that needs to be downloaded to be read.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch5.pdf

Another useful article is at: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/strictness.aspx


33/33

For an alternative even more conservative view that doesnt seem to take intoaccount all the evidence above, see:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/recptcon.pdf

Fr. John DAlton

baptism and reception of people into the orthodox church pts 1 and 2

Documents