Reception of the Heterodox and Accusations of Extremism

Notes on the Reception of Converts and Accusations of Extremism

By Paul Rosenboom

It is often the case that conversations around the topic of the reception of converts into the Orthodox Church as well as the topic of ecumenism and Orthodox ecclesiology result in aspersions directed toward the more traditional-minded Orthodox, characterizing them as fanatics, extremists, bigoted and ignorant.  Often we hear comments such as:  “How can you be so judgmental about the heterodox?  Requiring all converts to enter the Church through baptism is extreme!  How can you not accept that the Roman Catholics and Protestants are baptized?  Isn’t confession of belief in the Trinity sufficient to render their baptisms valid?  Can’t you see that the heterodox are in some sense connected to the Church?  How can you consider the heterodox as basically heathen?  Don't we all share a love for Christ?  Orthodoxy is the fullness of Truth but that doesn’t mean the heterodox mysteries are invalid!”  

Such comments and accusations are better answered in personal conversation but I thought it might be helpful to offer some reflections here.

Orthodoxy as a Unity of Life and Truth

Not sharing our Orthodox Mind and Faith, the heterodox are outside what we affirm to be the True Church established by Christ.  Orthodoxy is not merely the expression of a Trinitarian formula; it is a totality of belief and spiritual practice inseparable from correct Trinitarian belief.  Moreover, Orthodoxy is an organic whole, characterized by an interpenetration of dogma, worship, and spiritual life, together expressing the New Life within Her.  Each of these infuses the other.  Orthodoxy is characterized by an internal unity of Life and Truth; a shared presence of the one Spirit of Truth permeates all aspects of Orthodox life. Should there be an infection, that is, an innovation or heresy in one sphere, over time it inevitably affects the others and ultimately the entire life of the community of faithful. As a result, spiritual life is deformed and man suffers. The Orthodox consciousness that the Papal Church, for example, has severed itself from Orthodoxy is not rooted in some fanatical hatred of western Christians but rather the sober recognition that it has an errant Trinitarian doctrine(the Filioque), a heretical ecclesiology(papal primacy and infallibility), an un-orthodox Christology(the theology of the “sacred heart”) and incorrect Mariology(the Immaculate Conception), not to mention a legalistic understanding of salvation and spiritual life as well as a scholastic theological approach.  The numerous heresies and innovations introduced by the Papal church have infected every aspect of that community’s life, including dogma, worship, prayer, spiritual discipline and the general ethos.  There can be no authentic sacramental practice in her life, including baptism, that is untainted by these innovations and heresies.  As a result, the separation of the Papal church from the Orthodox Church and the understanding that it is outside the One True Church entered the Orthodox conscience centuries ago. Expressing the consciousness of the Orthodox Church, numerous synods and Church Fathers have declared Roman Catholicism to be persistently and defiantly heretical. This awareness has been seriously questioned only since the rise of the modern ecumenical movement.  For the Orthodox, communion in love is inseparable from unity in the Faith.  As Father Vasileios, formerly of Iviron, stated:  “...if our truth is not revealed in love, then it is false.  And if our love does not flow from the Truth, then it is not lasting.”

Baptism and the Reception of the Heterodox

With regard to baptism, the Canons of the Church and the writings of the Fathers clearly define Orthodox Baptism as unique and singular, belonging exclusively to the True Church.  Baptism administered by heretics is not regarded as an authentic baptism in the eyes of the Fathers.  (Note: I prefer to use the term authentic rather than valid, the latter denoting a particular framework of thinking.)  Such baptisms were viewed by the Fathers as merely empty form and estranged from the Truth.  Examples of the Patristic witness in this regard are many, among them the Apostolic Canons 46, 47 and 68, and the writings of St. Basil, St. Athanasios, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.  This consensus among the Fathers throughout the history of the Church up to our day is clearly documented in the recent book by Uncut Mountain Press, On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church. True baptism is an initiation into the pleroma of Grace within the Church.  

The historical and canonical tradition indicates the Fathers did in some cases allow for reception without (re-)baptism, instead using Chrismation or Confession of Faith.  However, the academic/ecumenist argument that the manner of reception was determined by discerning whether or not the heretic has already received baptismal regeneration, is entirely without foundation.  There is no historical support for the claim that the Church, or a consensus of the Fathers, has ever considered a  baptism in the name of the Trinity to be authentic, that is, grace-filled and redemptive, irrespective of the Orthodoxy of the community bestowing it.  Moreover, the logic of the academic-ecumenist position is controverted by the fact that the same heretics were received in various ways at different times according to the circumstances.  For example, the Novations were received by Confession of Faith according to the 8th Canon of the First Ecumenical Synod and it was later determined at the Second Ecumenical Synod that they should be Chrismated.  Both Arians and Novations were subject at different times to all three manners of reception.  One can only conclude that the manner of reception was most certainly not tied to the question of whether sacramental, regenerative Grace had been bestowed.  Furthermore, if Chrismation denoted an acceptance of the heterodox baptism as grace-filled, then, the baptism of this same group at  a different time would seem to violate the 47th Apostolic Canon, but there is no record of any Father of the Church opposing this varied means of reception being applied to the same heretical group. If we consider the reception of Roman Catholics, we note that they were received over the centuries by both Baptism and Chrismation in the Byzantine and Slavic East.  St. Mark of Ephesus, while clearly regarding the Latins as heretics and outside the Church, did, indeed, recommend they be received into Orthodoxy by Chrismation,  However, he does not suggest or indicate in any way that receiving them by baptism was wrong.  The Russian Church routinely baptized Latin converts from the 13th century until well into the 17th century.

The Patristic texts clearly contradict the idea that the akrivea/economia model is a late 18th century invention by St. Nikodemos.  St. Basil argues in his letter to Amphilochios that the Cathari clergy are nothing more than laymen and, in his view, should be baptized, but it is nevertheless possible to receive them into the Church by Chrismation, “for the sake of economy towards the many.”  The Cathari are later received by Confession of Faith according to Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Synod.  Regarding the Encratites, St. Basil says their baptism ought not to be accepted but should this, by reason of its severity,  pose an obstacle “to the general economy,” he will follow the Fathers.  St. Athanasios, in his letter to the Antiochenes calls those bishops “good economists” when they received the Arian heretics by Confession of Faith, though elsewhere he had described their baptism as “empty,” “ useless,” and “polluted”.  St. Cyril of Alexandria, with reference to the Nestorians, speaks of exercising “economy for the sake of those who repent.”  Even prominent non-Chalcedonian theologians speak of Arians and Macedonians being received by economia.  

The question of when economia may be applied would seem to center around pastoral discretion depending on the circumstances as well as whether the heterodox in question had received a baptism according to Orthodox form, that is, triple immersion in the name of the Trinity.  One may speculate on the rationale underlying the use of economia and here the numerical size and political influence of the heretical group might have been central. The Arians and Macedonians were very large and politically powerful.  Economy may well have been applied to reintegrate them en masse as quickly and efficiently as possible. Likewise, the Monothelites and the Iconoclasts had also been politically powerful and, along with the Novations, consisted of very large numbers.  With regard to the non-Chalcedonians, there seems to have been a persistent reluctance to view the separation, though very real, as permanent and there were several attempts at mutual understanding and reconciliation. The non-Chalcedomians were a very significant portion of the Empire and this fact, combined with their  largely Orthodox practice, might have been the determining factor in their being received by Confession of Faith according to the Synod in Trullo. Indeed, even today, a genuine Orthodox ecumenism would do well to revive and re-focus its efforts to resolve the differences between the Orthodox and non-Chalcedomnians. Nevertheless, after fifteen hundred years of separation, one might argue that, at the very least, they should today be received by Chrismation. With regard to the Latins, St.Nikodemos points to the pressures and aggression of the Papal Church to account for their reception by Chrismation in 1480.  

This is not to say that the heterodox are equivalent in our eyes to pagans.  We do not and should not refer to the heterodox in such terms.  As Orthodox, we would never dispute the fact that the RC Church, for example, professes to be Christian.  We share a common past and their  separation from the communion of Orthodox Churches, as Archimandrite Vassileios of Iviron stated, is a “painful matter for us.”  According to the blessed Philaret of ROCOR, regarding the heterodox, they “have been born and raised  and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox;  in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. Perhaps the Lord is leading them also towards salvation in His own way.”  Those heterodox, who remain in invincible ignorance of the True Church, who profess faith in Christ and strive to be obedient to His Commandments, we do not condemn but commit to the mercy and inscrutable judgment of God.  Nevertheless, it is, at the very least, dangerous to one’s salvation to be outside the Church and immersed in the theological confusion and  spiritual delusion of modern Christian heresies.  While we might leave room for the salvation of individuals among the heterodox, this is not in any way to mean the churches to which they belong are salvific or have any degree of authentic ecclesiality. In this vein, the same blessed Metropolitan Philaret, whose relics are uncorrupted, affirms: “The Holy Spirit is above all, the Spirit of Truth…;  If a man opposes the Truth which he clearly apprehends by his reason and conscience, he becomes blind and commits spiritual suicide…  man’s refusal to accept the Divine Truth[in the witness of the Orthodox Church] and his opposition thereto makes him a son of damnation. The Holy Orthodox Church is the repository of the divinely revealed Truth in all its fullness and fidelity to Apostolic Tradition.  Hence, he who leaves the Church, who intentionally and consciously falls away from it,  joins the ranks of its opponents and becomes a renegade as regards Apostolic Tradition.  The Church dreadfully anathematizes such renegades…”   Properly speaking, to be a Christian is to be “in Christ” and in His Church. 

The so-called “rebaptism” advocated by traditional-minded faithful and clergy of the heterodox Christians upon reception into the Orthodox Church is inspired not by narrow-mindedness and bigotry, but by a consistent theology and concern for the souls of those estranged from the Church. Genuine concern for the heterodox entails distinguishing the True Faith from the false Christian traditions and cultivating in catechumens a genuine Orthodox ethos as opposed to some minimalist requirement derived from a variation on the branch theory.  As Orthodox, we must have the courage  to stand up to the “intolerant bigotry of religious relativism”(an apt phrase used by bishop Chrysostomos of Etna) as it is pushed by our hierarchs on account of a deluded love for the non-orthodox and a desire for the worldly praise and glory gained by the betrayal of the the sacred Traditions of our Church. Our academic theologians must surrender their egos to the common consciousness of the Church, as witnessed by the writings and actions of the God-bearing Fathers, especially those of our day.